Free and Premium PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Dumps Questions Answers

Yes, the audit team should obtain approval from Lawsy before photocopying documents. This is a best practice to ensure that the auditee agrees to the duplication of documents, which might contain sensitive or confidential information. Although auditors can observe and note down information, copying documents typically requires explicit permission to maintain trust and ensure compliance with confidentiality agreements.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 5.2 requires top management to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting information security objectives1. Clause 6.2 requires top management to ensure that the information security objectives are established at relevant functions and levels1. Therefore, when verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate top management’s involvement and commitment.

To verify that the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented and effective, an ISMS auditor should review relevant documents and records that demonstrate how the policy and objectives are communicated, monitored, measured, analyzed, and evaluated. The auditor should also sample and verify the implementation of the controls that are stated in the policy.

Three options for the audit trail that are relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives are:

Review the internal audit report to make sure the IT department has been audited: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the IT department, which is responsible for managing the mobile devices and their security, has been evaluated for its conformity and effectiveness in implementing the mobile device policy and objectives. The internal audit report can also reveal any nonconformities, corrective actions, or opportunities for improvement related to the mobile device policy and objectives.

Sampling some mobile devices from on-duty medical staff and validate the mobile device information with the asset register: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the mobile devices that are used by the medical staff, who are involved in processing and storing residents’ data, are registered in the asset register and have physical protection enabled. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of two of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.

Review the asset register to make sure all company’s mobile devices are registered: This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the company’s mobile devices that are within the ISMS scope are identified and accounted for. This can verify the implementation and effectiveness of one of the controls that are stated in the mobile device policy.

The other options for the audit trail are not relevant to verifying the mobile device policy and objectives, as they are not related to the policy or objectives or their implementation or effectiveness. For example:

Interview the reception personnel to make sure all visitor and employee bags are checked before entering the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding physical security or access control, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Review visitors’ register book to make sure no visitor can have their personal mobile phone in the nursing home: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security awareness or compliance, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Interview the supplier of the devices to make sure they are aware of the ISMS policy: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to another policy or objective regarding information security within supplier relationships, but not specifically to mobile devices.

Interview top management to verify their involvement in establishing the information security policy and the information security objectives: This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the mobile device policy and objectives are implemented or effective. It may be related to verifying that the information security policy and objectives have been established by top management, but not specifically to mobile devices.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.2 (Nonconformity and corrective action):

When a nonconformity occurs, the organization shall … take action to control and correct it, and deal with the consequences; evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the nonconformity, in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere; implement any action needed; review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken.

The auditor’s responsibility is to verify effectiveness of corrective actions. This means the auditor must look for evidence of change that actually addresses the root cause and prevents recurrence — not just temporary fixes, promises, or documentation.

Let’s analyse the distractors:

A. Incorrect — corrective action should not allow recurrence.

B. Incorrect — refers to preventive action, which ISO 27001:2022 no longer uses as a separate concept; instead, it is integrated into risk management.

C. Weak — merely “reducing probability” is not sufficient; ISO 27001 requires elimination of causes to prevent recurrence.

D. Incorrect — “assurance from the auditee” is not acceptable evidence; auditors need objective evidence, not verbal commitment.

E. Incorrect — “comfort” is not an audit principle; ISO 19011 requires objective evidence.

F. Correct — aligns directly with ISO 27001 clause 10.2: “review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken … so that nonconformity does not recur.”

Thus, the correct nonconformity statement is:

“When reviewing the effectiveness of action taken in response to a nonconformity, an auditor seeks evidence of change that will prevent recurrence of the issue.”

This scenario presents a risk related to the sample size. Examining only 15 out of 50 employee training records may not provide a fully representative view of the entire organization's adherence to the training and awareness requirements of ISO/IEC 27001. There is a risk that this sample size is not sufficient to justify a general conclusion about the entire organization.

The role of the audit team leader does not include setting up an ethics committee. The primary responsibilities of the audit team leader include planning the audit, directing the activities of the audit team, ensuring compliance with the auditing standards, managing conflicts that arise during the audit, and presenting audit conclusions.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 9.3 requires top management to review the organization’s ISMS at planned intervals to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness1. Clause 9.2 requires the organization to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and is effectively implemented and maintained1. Therefore, when reviewing the audit process and audit findings as a final check before the external certification body arrives, an internal ISMS auditor should verify that these clauses are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Six of the following statements would cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

The audit programme shows management reviews taking place at irregular intervals during the year: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not conducting management reviews at planned intervals, as required by clause 9.3. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the ISMS.

The audit programme does not take into account the relative importance of information security processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not applying a risk-based approach to determine the audit frequency, methods, scope and criteria, as recommended by ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems2. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address the most significant risks and opportunities for its ISMS.

Although the scope for each internal audit has been defined, there are no audit criteria defined for the audits carried out to date: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not establishing audit criteria for each internal audit, as required by clause 9.2. Audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared2. Without audit criteria, it is not possible to determine whether the ISMS conforms to its own requirements and those of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

Audit reports to date have used key performance indicator information to focus solely on the efficiency of ISMS processes: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not evaluating the effectiveness of ISMS processes, as required by clause 9.1. Effectiveness is the extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved2. Efficiency is the relationship between the result achieved and the resources used2. Both aspects are important for measuring and evaluating ISMS performance and improvement.

The audit programme does not take into account the results of previous audits: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not using the results of previous audits as an input for planning and conducting subsequent audits, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182. This may affect the ability of the organization to identify and address any recurring or unresolved issues or nonconformities related to its ISMS.

Top management commitment to the ISMS will not be audited before the certification visit, according to the audit programme: This statement would cause concern because it implies that the organization is not verifying that top management demonstrates leadership and commitment with respect to its ISMS, as required by clause 5.1. This may affect the ability of top management to ensure that the ISMS policy and objectives are established and compatible with the strategic direction of the organization; that roles, responsibilities and authorities for relevant roles are assigned and communicated; that resources needed for the ISMS are available; that communication about information security matters is established; that continual improvement of the ISMS is promoted; that other relevant management reviews are aligned with those of information security; and that support is provided to other relevant roles1.

The other statements would not cause concern in respect of conformity to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements:

Audit reports are not held in hardcopy (i.e. on paper). They are only stored as ".POF documents on the organisation’s intranet: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific format or media for documenting or storing audit reports, as long as they are controlled according to clause 7.5.

The audit programme mandates auditors must be independent of the areas they audit in order to satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for auditor independence, as long as the audit is conducted objectively and impartially, in accordance with ISO 19011:20182.

The audit programme does not reference audit methods or audit responsibilities: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for referencing audit methods or audit responsibilities in the audit programme, as long as they are defined and documented according to ISO 19011:20182.

The audit process states the results of audits will be made available to ‘relevant’ managers, not top management: This statement would not cause concern because it does not imply any nonconformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requirements. The standard does not prescribe any specific requirement for communicating the results of audits to top management, as long as they are reported to the relevant parties and used as an input for management review, according to clause 9.3.

Sinvestment should correct the identified issue related to the lack of documentation on information security training and awareness before the stage 2 audit. Addressing this gap promptly ensures that the ISMS is fully compliant and effective when assessed in the subsequent audit stage.

The integrity principle of information security has been affected in this case. The chatbot’s inability to provide accurate answers and its unintended behavior (sending random files) due to insufficient testing and lack of proper training samples compromised the integrity of the system.

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.3, the organisation shall determine the scope of the information security management system (ISMS) by considering the internal and external issues, the requirements of interested parties, and the interfaces and dependencies with other organisations12

In this case, the ISMS scope covers an outsourced data center that hosts the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server for healthcare monitoring and analysis of the residents’ data. Therefore, the audit evidence you need to find to verify the scope of the ISMS should include:

The auditee has identified the governmental authorities’ needs and expectations on healthcare services and patient data handling. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to comply with the relevant laws and regulations regarding the quality, safety, and privacy of healthcare services and patient data12

The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on how they should protect the resident’s personal data. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident’s personal data that is collected, processed, and stored by the electronic wristband and the AI cloud server12

The IT service agreement with the data center where the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server is located. This is an interface and dependency with another organisation that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to control the externally provided processes, products, and services that are relevant to the ISMS, and to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security12

The following options are not relevant or sufficient for verifying the scope of the ISMS:

The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the facility and environmental safety. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement, but it does not affect the ISMS scope, as it is not related to information security12

The auditee has ISO 9001 certification. This is an indication of the auditee’s quality management system, but it does not verify the scope of the ISMS, as it is not related to information security12

The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the comfort facility, medical professional’s competence, and clean environment. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not affect the ISMS scope, as they are not related to information security12

The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on healthcare medical treatment services. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not verify the scope of the ISMS, as they are not specific to information security12

The auditee is considering the purchase of a healthcare monitoring app from an external software company. This is a potential change that may affect the ISMS scope in the future, but it does not verify the current scope of the ISMS, as it is not yet implemented or controlled12

Yes, according to ISO/IEC 27001, the company needs to provide evidence of the implementation of procedures regarding the logging of user activities. This requirement is essential to ensure that events are recorded and regularly reviewed, supporting the detection and prevention of security incidents.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Incorrect Statement – Not all vulnerabilities require immediate remediation. Risk assessment determines whether controls are necessary. Some vulnerabilities pose low risks and may not need urgent fixes.

A. Correct Statement – Vulnerabilities can be intrinsic (inherent flaws) or extrinsic (caused by external misconfigurations).

B. Correct Statement – Threats must exploit vulnerabilities to cause harm.

This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.8.8 (Management of Technical Vulnerabilities).

This situation represents a sampling error, making option B the correct answer. ISO 19011:2018 explicitly states that management system audits are conducted using sampling techniques because it is impractical to examine all available information within the constraints of time and resources. When auditors select a subset of records, there is an inherent risk that the sample may not fully represent the entire population.

In this scenario, the audit team reviewed training records for 15 out of 50 employees to assess conformity with ISO/IEC 27001 training and awareness requirements. While this is an acceptable and standard audit practice, it introduces the possibility that the selected sample may not reflect gaps or issues present in the remaining records. This uncertainty is known as sampling risk or sampling error.

Option A is incorrect because a “risk related to the auditor” generally refers to competence, impartiality, or ethical behavior issues, none of which are indicated here. The auditors followed a recognized audit method. Option C is incorrect because inherent risk relates to the nature of the organization or its environment, not to the audit technique used.

Sampling error does not imply that the audit conclusion is invalid; rather, it reflects a known limitation of audits that auditors must manage through professional judgment and appropriate sample selection. Therefore, reviewing a subset of training records represents sampling error.

According to ISO 19011:2018, clause 5.3, the person responsible for managing the audit programme should determine the resources necessary for the audit programme, such as the audit team members, the budget, the time, the tools, etc. The audit resources should be sufficient and appropriate to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the audit programme and the audit results. The audit resources include the following elements12:

Essential resources: These are the resources that are required to conduct the audit programme and the individual audits, such as the audit documents, the audit methods, the audit tools, the audit schedule, the audit budget, etc. The essential resources should be identified and allocated based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the availability and cooperation of the auditee. The essential resources should also be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect any changes or deviations in the audit programme or the individual audits.

Competent personnel: These are the audit team members who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently, and to provide credible and reliable audit results and recommendations. The competent personnel should include the audit team leader, the auditors, and any technical experts or observers who support the audit team. The competent personnel should be selected and appointed based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the specific competence requirements for the audit programme and the individual audits. The competent personnel should also be independent and impartial, and avoid any conflicts of interest or self-interest that may affect the audit results or the audit decisions.

Audit objectives are the specific purposes or goals that the customer or the certification body wants to achieve through the audit. They define what the audit intends to accomplish and provide the basis for planning and conducting the audit. Audit objectives may vary depending on the type, scope, and criteria of the audit, but they should be clear, measurable, and achievable.

Some examples of audit objectives for a third-party ISMS audit are:

Assess conformity with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements: This objective means that the audit aims to verify that the organisation’s ISMS meets the requirements of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which specifies the best practices for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and improving an information security management system. The audit will evaluate the organisation’s ISMS documentation, processes, controls, and performance against the standard’s clauses and annex A controls.

Confirm sites operating the ISMS: This objective means that the audit aims to confirm that the organisation’s ISMS covers all the relevant sites or locations where the organisation operates or provides its services. The audit will verify that the scope of the ISMS is accurate and consistent with the organisation’s context, objectives, and risks.

The other phrases are not audit objectives, but rather:

Evaluate customer processes and functions: This is not an audit objective, but rather a possible audit criterion or a requirement that the organisation’s processes and functions should meet. The audit criterion is the reference against which the audit evidence is compared to determine conformity or nonconformity. The audit criterion may include ISO/IEC 27001 requirements, customer requirements, or other applicable standards or regulations.

Fulfil the audit plan: This is not an audit objective, but rather a task or an activity that the auditor performs during the audit. The audit plan is a document that describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. The auditor should follow and fulfil the audit plan to ensure that the audit is conducted effectively and efficiently.

Determine the scope of the ISMS: This is not an audit objective, but rather a prerequisite or an input for conducting the audit. The scope of the ISMS is the extent and boundaries of the information security management system within the organisation. It defines what processes, activities, locations, assets, and stakeholders are included or excluded from the ISMS. The scope of the ISMS should be determined by the organisation before applying for certification or undergoing an audit.

Review organisation efficiency: This is not an audit objective, but rather a possible outcome or a result of conducting an audit. The organisation efficiency is a measure of how well the organisation uses its resources to achieve its goals and objectives. The audit may help review and improve the organisation efficiency by identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in its information security management system.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Correct Answer:

The classification-based security approach aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.12 (Classification of Information).

The organization is applying a security control in accordance with the classification policy, ensuring conformity to information security best practices.

A. Incorrect:

Nonconformity occurs when a process does not comply with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. However, in this case, the classification system is correctly implemented.

B. Incorrect:

Anomaly refers to unexpected deviations in operations, but this is an intentional implementation.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.12 (Information Classification Policy)

These three options represent valid audit trails for control 5.7, as they are aligned with the control’s requirements and objectives. According to the web search results from my predefined tool, control 5.7 requires organisations to collect and analyse information relating to information security threats and use that information to take mitigation actions12. The control also specifies that threat intelligence should be relevant, perceptive, contextual, and actionable, and that it should be used to prevent, detect, or respond to threats34. Therefore, the auditor should verify how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, how it uses threat intelligence to protect its information assets, and how it monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of its threat intelligence arrangements. The other options are not valid audit trails, as they are either irrelevant, incorrect, or incomplete. For example:

•The task of producing threat intelligence is not assigned to the organisation’s internal audit team, but to the person or team responsible for the ISMS, such as the information security manager or the information security committee5 .

•The organisation’s risk assessment process does not begin with effective threat intelligence, but with the identification of the context, scope, and objectives of the ISMS . Threat intelligence is an input for the risk identification and analysis, but not the starting point of the risk assessment process.

•Speaking to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats is not sufficient to audit the control, as it does not address how the organisation collects, analyses, and produces threat intelligence, nor how it uses it to take mitigation actions. The auditor should also speak to the staff involved in the threat intelligence process, and review the relevant documents and records.

•Checking that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process is not enough to audit the control, as it does not verify the implementation and effectiveness of the process. The auditor should also observe the process in action, and examine the outputs and outcomes of the process.

•Determining whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence is a partial audit trail, as it only covers one aspect of the control. The auditor should also assess the quality, reliability, and relevance of the sources, and how the information is analysed and used.

According to ISO/IEC 27001, organizations must control planned changes and review the consequences of unintended changes in order to ensure continued alignment with information security requirements. In this scenario, the organization failed to perform appropriate testing after an emergency update to the mobile app, which constitutes a nonconformity with clause 8.1 of the standard.

**References**:

- ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Reference Materials

- PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO 27001 Lead Auditor

ISO/IEC 27001 requires that organizations adhere to their established procedures for software security management. The IT Manager's approval of the app despite failed security tests and lack of proper documentation for the new version indicates noncompliance with the procedure, thus reflecting a nonconformity.

**References**:

- ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Reference Materials

- PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO 27001 Lead Auditor

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.1 requires an organization to determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of its ISMS2. External issues are those that originate from outside the organization, such as legal, regulatory, cultural, social, political, economic, natural and competitive factors2. Internal issues are those that originate from within the organization, such as governance, structure, roles and responsibilities, policies, objectives, culture, capabilities, resources and information systems2. Therefore, based on this definition, four examples of external issues in the context of a management system to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are a rise in interest rates in response to high inflation (which affects the economic environment of the organization), a reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy (which affects the political and legal environment of the organization), higher labour costs as a result of an aging population (which affects the social and demographic environment of the organization), and inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions (which affects the trade and supply environment of the organization)2. The other options are examples of internal issues, as they originate from within the organization or its activities. For example, poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure (which affects the capabilities and resources of the organization), increased absenteeism as a result of poor management (which affects the culture and performance of the organization), poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced (which affects the motivation and satisfaction of the organization’s personnel), and a fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment (which affects the efficiency and quality of the organization’s processes)2. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements

According to ISO/IEC 27001 standards, if the auditee decides to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions for a nonconformity, this decision should be justified and documented. Documenting such decisions is essential for maintaining the integrity of the ISMS and for demonstrating that the decision was made based on informed judgment.

A vulnerability is a weakness in an information system, system security procedures, internal controls, or implementation that could be exploited by a threat source. In this case, not checking the source code of an updated application can lead to unauthorized modifications, thus representing a vulnerability that may impact the integrity of the information, as integrity refers to the accuracy and completeness of the information. References: = The explanation aligns with the general principles of information security management systems and the content typically covered in ISMS ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor training and certification programs, which include understanding vulnerabilities and their impact on information security attributes like integrity.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Northstorm adopted an international standard for Personally Identifiable Information (PII) controllers and PII processors to ensure its data handling practices were secure and compliant with global regulations. This aligns directly with ISO/IEC 27701, which extends ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002 to cover Privacy Information Management Systems (PIMS), specifically addressing the protection of PII.

A. ISO/IEC 27701 – Correct Answer. This standard is designed for organizations acting as PII controllers and processors and provides guidelines on privacy management, regulatory compliance, and data protection.

B. ISO/IEC 27009 – Incorrect because this standard provides guidance on sector-specific requirements for ISMS, not privacy or PII protection.

C. ISO/IEC 27003 – Incorrect because it provides general implementation guidance for ISMS, not specific controls for PII processing.

This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.34 (Privacy and Protection of PII), which focuses on ensuring compliance with privacy regulations and implementing privacy-enhancing security measures.

This situation represents an audit finding, making option A the correct answer. An audit finding is the result of evaluating audit evidence against audit criteria and identifying conformity, nonconformity, or opportunities for improvement. In this case, the auditor evaluated training records and discovered that two employees did not receive adequate information security training, which is a deviation from ISO/IEC 27001 training and awareness requirements.

Audit evidence consists of the records, interviews, or observations used to support findings. The training records themselves are evidence, not the finding. Information sources are where evidence originates, such as documents, personnel, or systems, but they are not the conclusion drawn by the auditor.

Option B is incorrect because the lack of training is not evidence; it is the conclusion derived from evaluating evidence. Option C is incorrect because employees or records may be information sources, but the situation described is the auditor’s evaluative conclusion.

ISO 19011 emphasizes that audit findings must be based on objective evidence and clearly documented. Therefore, identifying that some employees lacked adequate training constitutes an audit finding.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Preventive Control – Correct Answer. Access control software is designed to prevent unauthorized access by enforcing authentication and authorization mechanisms. This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.5.18 (Access Rights).

B. Detective controls identify and log unauthorized access attempts, but do not prevent them.

C. Corrective controls take action after a security event has occurred.

The overall competence of the12:

The audit scope and criteria: The audit scope defines the extent and boundaries of the audit, such as the locations, processes, functions, and time period to be audited. The audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures, standards, or requirements used as a reference against which the audit evidence is compared. The audit scope and criteria determine the complexity and extent of the audit, and thus influence the number and expertise of the auditors needed to cover all the relevant aspects of the audit.

The overall competence of the audit team needed to achieve audit objectives: The audit team should have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently, and to provide credible and reliable audit results. The audit team competence should include the following elements12:

Generic competence: The ability to apply the principles and methods of auditing, such as planning, conducting, reporting, and following up the audit, as well as the personal behaviour and attributes of the auditors, such as ethical conduct, fair presentation, professional care, independence, and impartiality.

Discipline and sector-specific competence: The ability to understand and apply the audit criteria and the relevant technical or industry aspects of the audited organization, such as the information security management system (ISMS) requirements, the information security risks and controls, the legal and regulatory obligations, the organizational context and culture, the processes and activities, the products and services, etc.

Audit team leader competence: The ability to manage the audit team and the audit process, such as coordinating the audit activities, communicating with the audit programme manager and the auditee, resolving any audit-related problems, ensuring the quality and consistency of the audit work and the audit report, etc.

The person responsible for managing the audit programme should not consider the following factors when deciding the size and composition of the audit team for a specific audit, as they are either irrelevant or inappropriate for the audit process12:

Customer relationships: The audit team should not be influenced by any personal or professional relationships with the auditee or other interested parties, as this may compromise the objectivity and impartiality of the audit. The audit team should avoid any conflicts of interest or self-interest that may affect the audit results or the audit decisions.

Seniority of the audit team leader: The audit team leader should be selected based on their competence and experience, not on their seniority or rank within the organization or the audit programme. The audit team leader should have the authority and responsibility to manage the audit team and the audit process, regardless of their seniority or position.

The cost of the audit: The cost of the audit should not be the primary factor for determining the size and composition of the audit team, as this may compromise the quality and effectiveness of the audit. The audit team should have sufficient resources and time to conduct the audit in accordance with the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and to provide accurate and reliable audit results and recommendations.

The duration preferred by the auditee: The duration of the audit should be based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the availability and cooperation of the auditee, not on the preference or convenience of the auditee. The audit team should have enough time to conduct the audit in a thorough and systematic manner, and to collect and evaluate sufficient and relevant audit evidence.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 7.5 (Documented Information) defines the role of documentation in an ISMS.

A. Correct Statement:

Documented information serves as a guideline for ISMS operations and provides audit evidence.

B. Incorrect Statement:

Collecting documented information is not a goal in itself.

The purpose of documentation is to support the ISMS and ensure compliance, not just to generate paperwork.

C. Correct Statement:

Documents should be clear and concise, avoiding unnecessary complexity while still being detailed enough to be useful.

Thus, documentation should be purposeful and functional, not just a bureaucratic requirement.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 7.5 (Documented Information)

CyberShielding Systems Inc. should have included the identification of areas for improvement when defining the audit objectives, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 27001 audits are not limited to verifying compliance; they also support continual improvement of the ISMS. ISO 19011 encourages audits to provide value by identifying weaknesses, improvement opportunities, and areas where effectiveness can be enhanced.

In the scenario, the audit objectives were primarily focused on conformity with criteria and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. While this is essential, a well-defined audit objective should also include evaluating opportunities to improve security practices, control effectiveness, and risk management maturity. Identifying improvement areas helps the organization strengthen its ISMS beyond basic compliance and aligns with ISO/IEC 27001 clause 10 on continual improvement.

Option B is incorrect because audit objectives should not be narrowly focused only on recent incidents or management concerns, as this could lead to biased or incomplete coverage. Option C is incorrect because limiting the audit to documentation review undermines the effectiveness of the audit and contradicts the requirement for evidence-based evaluation of operational controls.

Therefore, including improvement identification as an audit objective would have strengthened the audit’s value and alignment with ISO/IEC 27001 principles.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Correct Answer – This is a Threat. A cyberattack exploiting a zero-day vulnerability is an active security threat, as it causes harm to the organization.

A. Employee accessing unauthorized files is a vulnerability (insider risk) rather than an external threat.

B. Lack of MFA is a security weakness (vulnerability), not a threat.

This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control A.8.25 (Assessment and Decision on Information Security Events).

The four statements that are true are:

•Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

•The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities

•Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

•Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance

According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are:

•A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5.

•A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5.

The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution.

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually.

The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example:

•Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’ are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3.

•Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement.

•Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics.

•Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Detection Risk (Correct Answer) – Detection risk occurs when control mechanisms fail to identify significant defects or errors. Cobt identified that major defects were not detected or prevented by internal controls, making detection risk the correct answer.

Inherent Risk refers to the likelihood of a security event occurring without considering any controls. The scenario mentions control failures, not natural risks, so this is incorrect.

Control Risk is the risk of controls failing to prevent a risk. However, the scenario specifically mentions that the defects were not detected, making detection risk the more precise answer.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 6.1.2 (Information Security Risk Assessment Process)

A checklist is a tool that helps auditors to collect and verify information relevant to the audit objectives and scope. It can provide the following advantages:

Ensuring relevant audit trails are followed: A checklist can help auditors to identify and trace the sources of evidence that support the conformity or nonconformity of the audited criteria. It can also help auditors to avoid missing or overlooking any important aspects of the audit.

Ensuring the audit plan is implemented: A checklist can help auditors to follow and fulfil the audit plan, which describes the arrangements and details of the audit, such as the objectives, scope, criteria, schedule, roles, and responsibilities. It can also help auditors to manage their time and resources effectively and efficiently.

The other options are not advantages of using a checklist, but rather:

Using the same checklist for every audit without review: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can lead to a rigid and ineffective audit approach. A checklist should be tailored and adapted to each specific audit, taking into account the context, risks, and changes of the auditee and the audit criteria. A checklist should also be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure its validity and relevance.

Restricting interviews to nominated parties: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can limit the scope and depth of the audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from interviewing other relevant parties or sources of information that may provide valuable evidence or insights for the audit. A checklist should be used as a guide, not as a constraint.

Reducing audit duration: This is not necessarily an advantage of using a checklist, as it depends on various factors, such as the complexity, size, and maturity of the auditee’s ISMS, the availability and quality of evidence, the competence and experience of the auditors, and the level of cooperation and communication between the auditors and the auditee. A checklist may help reduce audit duration by improving efficiency and organization, but it may also increase audit duration by requiring more evidence or verification.

Not varying from the checklist when necessary: This is a disadvantage of using a checklist, as it can result in a superficial or incomplete audit. A checklist should not prevent auditors from exploring or investigating any issues or concerns that arise during the audit, even if they are not included in the checklist. A checklist should be used as a support, not as a substitute.

ISO/IEC 27001 requires organizations to comply with applicable legal, statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements, including those pertaining to information security. These requirements must be identified, documented, and kept up to date as part of the organization's ISMS.

According to ISO/IEC 27001, the scope of an ISMS must be defined and documented. This documentation should include the boundaries and applicability of the information security management system, which helps in defining what information, locations, and assets are covered under the ISMS.

Yes, it is acceptable for the internal auditor to follow-up on the implementation of corrective actions until verified by the external auditor during the next surveillance audit. This practice supports continuous improvement and ensures that corrective actions are effectively implemented and maintained over time.

The three audit findings that would prompt you to raise a nonconformity report are:

•The organisation is treating information security risks in the order in which they are identified

•The organisation’s risk assessment criteria have not been reviewed and approved by top management

•The organisation’s information security risk assessment process is based solely on an assessment of the impact of each risk

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.2, the organisation must establish and maintain an information security risk management process that is consistent with the organisation’s context and aligned with its overall risk management approach1. This process must include the following steps:

•Establishing the risk assessment criteria, which must be approved by top management and reflect the organisation’s risk appetite and objectives2

•Identifying the information security risks, which must consider the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, impacts, and likelihoods3

•Analysing the information security risks, which must determine the levels of risk and compare them with the risk criteria4

•Evaluating the information security risks, which must prioritise the risks and decide whether they need treatment or not5

Therefore, the audit findings B, E, and F indicate that the organisation is not following the required steps of the information security risk management process, and thus are nonconformities with the standard.

The other audit findings are not necessarily nonconformities, as they may be acceptable depending on the organisation’s context and justification. For example:

•Audit finding A may be acceptable if the organisation has identified and treated the additional information security risks that are relevant to its scope and objectives, and has documented the rationale for doing so6

•Audit finding C may be acceptable if the organisation has assigned clear roles and responsibilities for the information security risk management process, and has ensured that the risk owners have the authority and competence to manage the risks7

•Audit finding D may be acceptable if the organisation has defined and communicated the meaning and implications of the emoji-based risk classification, and has ensured that it is consistent with the risk criteria and the risk treatment process8

•Audit finding G may be acceptable if the organisation has justified the use of discrete values for the probability of the information security risks, and has ensured that they are realistic and consistent with the risk criteria and the risk analysis method9

•Audit finding H may be acceptable if the organisation has established and maintained different systems for assessing operational and strategic information security risks, and has ensured that they are integrated and aligned with the overall risk management approach and the ISMS objectives10

competence of the audit team and decision made by the certification body

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, an accredited certification means that the certification body has been evaluated by an accreditation body against recognized standards to demonstrate its competence, impartiality and performance capability1. Therefore, an accredited certification assures the competence of the audit team that conducts the audit in accordance with ISO 19011 and ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and the decision made by the certification body that grants or maintains the certification based on the audit evidence and findings2. References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 - Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems – Part 1: Requirements, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer:

Remote follow-ups are acceptable for minor nonconformities, as long as auditors can verify corrective actions.

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 allows remote follow-ups when the effectiveness of corrective actions can be demonstrated.

B. Incorrect:

Follow-ups are required, but remote verification is acceptable for minor issues.

C. Incorrect:

An on-site follow-up is not mandatory unless major nonconformities are present.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Clause 9.6.8 (Remote Audit Follow-Ups)

Sinvestment’s request to review documented information remotely during the stage 1 audit is acceptable and aligns with established auditing practices, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 17021-1 and ISO 19011:2018 both permit flexibility in how audit activities are conducted, including the use of remote techniques, provided confidentiality, integrity, and effectiveness of the audit are maintained.

Stage 1 audits are primarily focused on reviewing documented information, understanding the organization’s context, confirming the ISMS scope, and assessing readiness for stage 2. Reviewing documents remotely is a widely accepted practice, especially when supported by appropriate confidentiality agreements, as was the case in this scenario. The auditors had already signed confidentiality agreements, mitigating the risk of information disclosure.

Option B is incorrect because remote document review does not inherently lead to a breach of confidentiality. Risks must be managed, not assumed. Secure document-sharing platforms and confidentiality agreements are sufficient safeguards when properly implemented. Option C is incorrect because the use of different locations or remote methods does not automatically reduce audit efficiency; in many cases, it enhances efficiency by reducing travel time and allowing better preparation.

Therefore, allowing remote review of documented information during stage 1 is fully consistent with ISO auditing standards and recognized certification body practices.

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook1, audit team leaders should have the following additional knowledge and skills compared to auditors:

•Plan the audit, including preparing the audit plan, assigning work to the audit team members and coordinating their activities

•Make effective use of resources provided to the audit, such as personnel, time, budget and equipment

•Manage the audit process, including leading the opening and closing meetings, directing the audit team, resolving conflicts and ensuring the audit objectives are achieved

•Review and approve the audit report and audit findings

•Communicate with the client and other interested parties throughout the audit

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Assigning responsibilities to the audit team members (Correct Answer) – This is not Sarah’s responsibility. The certification body assigns the audit team and defines responsibilities, ensuring independence and objectivity.

B. Defining the audit criteria and objectives (Correct Responsibility) – Sarah, as the audit team leader, must establish audit criteria and objectives, per ISO 19011 (Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems).

C. Planning the audit (Correct Responsibility) – The audit team leader is responsible for planning the audit, including timelines and resource allocation.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Clause 9.2 (Internal Audit)

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.5.2 (Defining Audit Objectives and Criteria)

The following statements are true:

The role of a certification body auditor involves evaluating the organization’s processes for ensuring compliance with their legal requirements. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to assess the effectiveness and conformity of the organization’s ISMS against the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard and the applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

During a third-party audit, the auditor evaluates how the organization ensures that they are made aware of changes to the legal requirements. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to verify that the organization has established and maintained a process for identifying and updating their legal and other requirements related to information security. The following statement is false:

As part of a certification body audit, the auditor is responsible for verifying the organization’s legal compliance status. This is not true, as the auditor is not authorized or qualified to provide legal advice or judgment on the organization’s compliance status. The auditor can only report on the evidence of compliance or noncompliance observed during the audit, but the ultimate responsibility for ensuring legal compliance lies with the organization. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 66. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 67. : ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB, page 22.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

C. Correct Answer:

Technical verification involves directly testing or simulating controls.

Webvue’s personnel simulated the encryption process, confirming test data security measures.

A. Incorrect:

Document review is passive, while technical verification is active and includes real-time assessments.

B. Incorrect:

Corroboration is about cross-checking information, whereas technical verification tests controls in practice.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.9 (Technical Verification in Audits)

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control A.5.29 requires an organization to establish and maintain a business continuity management process to ensure the continued availability of information and information systems at the required level following disruptive incidents1. The organization should identify and prioritize critical information assets and processes, assess the risks and impacts of disruptive incidents, develop and implement business continuity plans (BCPs), test and review the BCPs, and ensure that relevant parties are aware of their roles and responsibilities1. Therefore, when verifying the information security of the business continuity management process, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Three options that will be in the audit trail for verifying control A.5.29 are:

Collect more evidence on how the organisation manages information security on mobile devices and during teleworking (Relevant to control A.6.7): This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the organization has implemented appropriate controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information and information systems when staff work from home using mobile devices, such as laptops, tablets or smartphones. This is related to control A.6.7, which requires an organization to establish a policy and procedures for teleworking and use of mobile devices1.

Collect more evidence on how and when the Business Continuity Plan has been tested (Relevant to control A.5.29): This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the organization has tested and reviewed the BCPs to ensure their effectiveness and suitability for different scenarios, such as a pandemic. This is related to control A.5.29, which requires an organization to test and review the BCPs at planned intervals or when significant changes occur1.

Collect more evidence on how the organisation makes sure only staff with a negative test result can enter the organisation (Relevant to control A.7.2): This option is relevant because it can provide evidence of how the organization has implemented appropriate controls to prevent or reduce the risk of infection or transmission of diseases among staff or residents, such as requiring regular staff self-testing and using a health status app. This is related to control A.7.2, which requires an organization to ensure that all employees and contractors are aware of information security threats and concerns, their responsibilities and liabilities, and are equipped to support organizational policies and procedures in this respect1.

The other options are not relevant to verifying control A.5.29, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:

Collect more evidence by interviewing more staff about their feeling about working from home (Relevant to clause 4.2): This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a business continuity management process or ensured the continued availability of information and information systems following disruptive incidents. It may be related to clause 4.2, which requires an organization to understand the needs and expectations of interested parties, but not specifically to control A.5.29.

Collect more evidence on what resources the organisation provides to support the staff working from home (Relevant to clause 7.1): This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a business continuity management process or ensured the continued availability of information and information systems following disruptive incidents. It may be related to clause 7.1, which requires an organization to determine and provide the resources needed for its ISMS, but not specifically to control A.5.29.

Collect more evidence on how the organisation performs a business risk assessment to evaluate how fast the existing residents can be discharged from the nursing home (Relevant to clause 6): This option is not relevant because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a business continuity management process or ensured the continued availability of information and information systems following disruptive incidents. It may be related to clause 6, which requires an organization to plan actions to address risks and opportunities for its ISMS, but not specifically to control A.5.29.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

Audit plans must remain flexible to adapt to unforeseen findings and risks.

ISO 19011:2018 specifies that audit planning should allow dynamic adjustments.

A. Incorrect:

Audit procedures are part of execution, not planning.

C. Incorrect:

The audit team, not top management, prepares the audit plan.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.4 (Audit Planning Flexibility)

The two standards that are used as ISMS third-party certification audit criteria are ISO/IEC 27001 and relevant legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements. ISO/IEC 27001 specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS)1. Relevant legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements are those that apply to the organization’s information security aspects and objectives2. The other options are either not standards (E) or not directly related to the ISMS certification audit criteria (A, B, C, F). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 1 \n2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 4.2

The mail sent by the CEO giving his views on the status of the company and the company’s future strategy and the CEO’s vision and the employee’s part in it should be classified as internal mail. Internal mail is a type of classification that indicates that the information is intended for internal use only, and should not be disclosed to external parties without authorization. The mail sent by the CEO contains information that is relevant and important for the employees of the company, but may not be suitable for public disclosure, as it may contain sensitive or confidential information about the company’s performance, goals, or plans. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

The purpose of retaining documented information related to the ISMS of an organisation is to the extent necessary, to have confidence that the processes have been carried out as planned. This means that the documented information provides evidence of the conformity and effectiveness of the ISMS, as well as the achievement of the information security objectives and the continual improvement of the ISMS. Documented information also supports the analysis and evaluation of the ISMS performance and the identification of opportunities for improvement. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.5.1; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 17.

Jack clearly possesses the necessary knowledge and skills required of an auditor, making option C the correct answer. ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidance on auditing management systems, defines auditor competence as a combination of knowledge, skills, and personal attributes applied during audit activities. The scenario explicitly demonstrates that Jack meets these competence requirements.

Jack has extensive experience in risk management, information security controls, and incident management, which are core knowledge areas for an ISO/IEC 27001 audit. These competencies enable him to understand ISMS requirements, assess controls, and evaluate incident handling processes. In addition, the scenario highlights his understanding of auditing principles and processes, including the use of systematic, rational methods to achieve reliable and reproducible audit conclusions. This directly aligns with ISO 19011 principles such as evidence-based auditing and due professional care.

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

The correct answer is Previous audit experience within the audit scope, because judgement-based sampling relies heavily on the auditor’s professional judgment, knowledge, and experience. ISO 19011:2018 explicitly states that auditors may use judgmental (non-statistical) sampling when selecting audit samples, particularly when dealing with complex systems or limited audit time.

When applying judgement-based sampling, auditors consider factors such as areas with a history of nonconformities, previous audit findings, recurring weaknesses, and known high-risk processes. Prior audit experience within the same scope provides valuable insight into where problems are more likely to occur and where audit effort should be concentrated. This helps auditors select representative and meaningful samples that support reliable conclusions.

Option A is incorrect because monitoring activities prior to ISMS implementation may provide background context, but they are not a primary basis for judgement-based sampling in a certification audit. Option C is incorrect because the auditee’s general experience with management systems does not directly inform which specific records, processes, or controls should be sampled.

Judgement-based sampling is not random; it is risk-informed and experience-driven. Therefore, leveraging previous audit experience within the audit scope is the most appropriate and standards-aligned consideration.

The correct order of the stages is:

Prepare the audit checklist

Gather objective evidence

Review audit evidence

Document findings

Audit preparation: This stage involves defining the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and plan. The auditor also prepares the audit checklist, which is a list of questions or topics that will be covered during the audit. The audit checklist helps the auditor to ensure that all relevant aspects of the ISMS are addressed and that the audit evidence is collected in a systematic and consistent manner12.

Audit execution: This stage involves conducting the audit activities, such as opening meeting, interviews, observations, document review, and closing meeting. The auditor gathers objective evidence, which is any information that supports the audit findings and conclusions. Objective evidence can be qualitative or quantitative, and can be obtained from various sources, such as records, statements, physical objects, or observations123.

Audit reporting: This stage involves reviewing the audit evidence, evaluating the audit findings, and documenting the audit results. The auditor reviews the audit evidence to determine whether it is sufficient, reliable, and relevant to support the audit findings. The auditor evaluates the audit findings to determine the degree of conformity or nonconformity of the ISMS with the audit criteria. The auditor documents the audit results in an audit report, which is a formal record of the audit process and outcomes. The audit report typically includes the following elements123:

An introduction clarifying the scope, objectives, timing and extent of the work performed

An executive summary indicating the key findings, a brief analysis and a conclusion

The intended report recipients and, where appropriate, guidelines on classification and circulation

Detailed findings and analysis

Recommendations for improvement, where applicable

A statement of conformity or nonconformity with the audit criteria

Any limitations or exclusions of the audit scope or evidence

Any deviations from the audit plan or procedures

Any unresolved issues or disagreements between the auditor and the auditee

A list of references, abbreviations, and definitions used in the report

A list of appendices, such as audit plan, audit checklist, audit evidence, audit team members, etc.

Audit follow-up: This stage involves verifying the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee to address the audit findings. The auditor monitors the progress and completion of the corrective actions, and evaluates their impact on the ISMS performance and conformity. The auditor may conduct a follow-up audit to verify the corrective actions on-site, or may rely on other methods, such as document review, remote interviews, or self-assessment by the auditee. The auditor documents the follow-up results and updates the audit report accordingly123.

From Exact Extract:

1. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 – Obligation to implement security controls

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires organizations to implement information security controls to address identified risks, particularly where personally identifiable information (PII) is processed.

Under Clause 6.1.3 – Information security risk treatment, the standard requires that an organization:

“Determine all controls that are necessary to implement the information security risk treatment option(s) chosen.”

In this scenario, the chatbot introduced new and unmitigated risks, including:

Incorrect handling of user input

Potential unauthorized disclosure of information (sending random files)

Processing of PII without sufficient safeguards

Therefore, implementing additional security controls is mandatory, not optional.

2. ISO/IEC 27002:2022 – Privacy and monitoring controls

The controls implemented by Fintive directly align with Annex A of ISO/IEC 27002:2022, including:

A.5.34 – Privacy and protection of PIIRequires organizations to protect personal data in line with legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements.

A.8.15 – LoggingRequires audit logs to be enabled to record events for investigation.

A.8.16 – Monitoring activitiesRequires monitoring systems to detect anomalous behavior.

A.5.18 – Access rightsRequires periodic access reviews to prevent unauthorized access.

These controls are explicitly designed to detect errors, misuse, unauthorized access, and suspicious behavior — exactly the risks described in the scenario.

3. Why the other options are incorrect

Option A – IncorrectISO/IEC 27001 does not permit organizations to avoid implementing controls simply because they may affect operations. Operational impact is considered during risk assessment, but security and privacy obligations take precedence, especially for PII.

Option B – IncorrectISO/IEC 27001 does not limit the number of controls. Controls must be appropriate to the risk, not minimized for efficiency. A reduction in efficiency does not justify non-compliance or privacy violations.

4. Auditor conclusion

Implementing security controls to protect information privacy is:

Required by ISO/IEC 27001:2022

Consistent with ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Annex A controls

Appropriate given the identified risks

A correct application of risk treatment and continual improvement

Based on the provided scenario, the auditors’ request for documentary evidence regarding the monitoring process of outsourced operations indicates that the auditors demonstrated professional skepticism. This is because professional skepticism involves a critical assessment of audit evidence and includes a questioning mind and a careful evaluation of the information provided by the auditee123.

Professional skepticism is an essential part of the auditing process, especially in the context of ISO/IEC 27001, which requires auditors to systematically examine an organization’s information security risks, including the management of outsourced processes4. The auditors’ request for evidence suggests that they were not satisfied with verbal assurances alone and sought to verify that SendPay had a formal, documented process for monitoring outsourced activities, which is a requirement for maintaining an effective Information Security Management System (ISMS)5.

Therefore, the correct answer is: A. The auditors demonstrated professional skepticism.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

The Statement of Applicability (SoA) is a mandatory document in ISO/IEC 27001:2022 that lists all Annex A controls, their applicability, and justifications for inclusion or exclusion.

C. Correct Answer: The SoA must include justifications for excluding Annex A controls. The scenario states that the project team excluded certain controls but does not mention that justifications were documented. This violates ISO/IEC 27001 Clause 6.1.3 (Information Security Risk Treatment), which requires documenting exclusions with reasons.

A. Incorrect: While the SoA should include an exhaustive list of controls, simply listing applicable controls from Annex A and other sources does not meet the requirement if exclusions are not justified.

B. Incorrect: Including security controls from other sources is allowed and does not invalidate the SoA, as organizations can define additional controls beyond Annex A based on their risk assessment.

Thus, Clinic's SoA is incomplete because it does not provide a justification for the exclusions of Annex A controls, making it non-compliant with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements.

The number of days assigned to a third-party audit is not determined by the auditee’s availability, but by the audit program, which considers the audit scope, objectives, criteria, risks, and resources12. The auditee’s availability is only one factor that affects the audit planning and scheduling, but not the audit duration3. Auditors approved for conducting onsite audits do require additional training for virtual audits, as there are significant differences in the skillset required. Virtual audits pose different challenges and opportunities than onsite audits, such as communication, technology, security, and evidence collection4 . Auditors need to be familiar with the tools and techniques for conducting remote audits, as well as the ethical and professional behavior expected in a virtual environment . References:

PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 18

ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 5.3.2

ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.3.1

Deloitte - Conducting a Virtual Internal Audit, page 1

[A Guide to Conducting Effective and Efficient Remote Audits], page 1

[ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems], clause 7.2.3

[Remote Auditing Best Practices & Checklist for Regulatory Compliance], page 1

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, one of the professional behaviours expected from an audit team leader is to be decisive, which means to “reach timely conclusions based on logical reasoning and analysis” (page 8). Being open minded, ethical, and perceptive are also desirable qualities for an audit team leader, but they do not match the description given in the question. References: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 8.

A document review is a process of examining the documented information related to the management system before the on-site audit activities. The purpose of a document review is to: 12

Determine the conformity of the management system, as far as documented, with audit criteria, i.e., to check whether the documents are consistent, complete, and compliant with the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and any other applicable standards or regulations.

Gather information to support the on-site audit activities, i.e., to identify the scope, objectives, processes, controls, risks, and opportunities of the management system, and to plan the audit methods, techniques, and resources accordingly.

The other statements are not accurate, because:

A document review does not reveal or decide about the conformity or nonconformity of the management system as a whole, but only of the documented information. The conformity or nonconformity of the management system is determined by the on-site audit activities, which include interviews, observations, and tests12

A document review does not gather evidence or findings to support the audit report or process, but information to support the on-site audit activities. The evidence or findings are collected during the on-site audit activities, which are then documented and reported12

A document review does not detect any nonconformity of the management system, if documented, but determines the conformity of the documented information. The nonconformity of the management system is detected by the on-site audit activities, which evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the management system12

A document review does not identify information to support the audit plan, but gathers information to support the on-site audit activities. The audit plan is prepared before the document review, based on the audit scope, objectives, criteria, and program. The document review is part of the audit plan implementation12

This approach aligns with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 because the standard explicitly allows top management to assign responsibilities and authorities for the effective operation of the ISMS, including reporting on its performance. Clause 5.3 of ISO/IEC 27001 requires top management to ensure that roles, responsibilities, and authorities related to information security are assigned and communicated within the organization.

While top management remains ultimately accountable for the ISMS, the standard does not require them to personally gather data, prepare reports, or perform operational monitoring activities. In practice, these tasks are often delegated to ISMS managers, security teams, or other designated personnel who are better positioned to collect and analyze performance data. What matters is that the information reaches top management in a timely and accurate manner so they can fulfill their governance responsibilities.

Option B is incorrect because it misunderstands accountability versus responsibility. Top management is accountable for ISMS performance, but they are not required to perform all related tasks themselves. Option C is incorrect because ISO/IEC 27001 does not mandate that a Chief Information Security Officer must be the reporting authority. The organization is free to define roles based on its structure, size, and context.

Therefore, assigning specific personnel to report on ISMS performance is fully consistent with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements.

The immediate consequence is suspension of certification, making option A correct. ISO/IEC 17021-1 clearly states that certified organizations must allow scheduled surveillance audits to verify continued conformity with the standard. Surveillance audits are mandatory and form part of the three-year certification cycle.

Refusing or failing to undergo a surveillance audit prevents the certification body from confirming that the ISMS remains effective and compliant. This creates a loss of confidence in the validity of the certification. As a result, certification bodies are required to suspend certification until the audit can be conducted and conformity re-established.

Option B is incorrect because certification validity is conditional upon ongoing surveillance. Certification does not remain valid if mandatory audits are refused. Option C is incorrect because transferring certification does not remove the obligation to undergo surveillance audits; a transfer would still require evidence of conformity and audit continuity.

Suspension is a protective mechanism to ensure that ISO/IEC 27001 certificates remain credible and trustworthy. If the organization later agrees to the audit and resolves issues, the certification may be reinstated. Therefore, refusal to undergo a surveillance audit leads to immediate suspension.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Specific controls are tailored security controls chosen based on risk assessments, industry best practices, and regulatory requirements. These align with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A controls, which organizations select based on their risk landscape.

General controls refer to broad security measures that apply to all organizations.

Strategic controls focus on high-level governance and long-term security goals, not detailed security implementations.

The unfavorable recommendation for certification is best justified by the major nonconformity related to storing sensitive information in removable media, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 27001 certification decisions are heavily influenced by the presence and effective resolution of major nonconformities, particularly those that expose the organization to significant information security risks.

In this scenario, sensitive information was stored on removable media in violation of Trustingo’s own information classification scheme. This represents a serious breakdown in control implementation and creates a high risk of data leakage, loss, or unauthorized disclosure. Such a condition is typically classified as a major nonconformity because it demonstrates a failure to effectively implement and enforce ISMS controls related to information handling and protection.

While the lack of an information labeling procedure is a valid nonconformity, it is generally considered minor when viewed in isolation. Option B therefore does not sufficiently justify an unfavorable certification recommendation on its own. Option C is also incorrect because submitting the action plan earlier than the agreed timeline is not a negative factor and does not breach certification requirements.

Even though Trustingo submitted an action plan, its lack of sufficient detail prevented the certification body from confirming that the major nonconformity would be effectively corrected and prevented from recurring. Therefore, the unresolved major nonconformity related to sensitive information on removable media is the primary justification for the unfavorable certification recommendation.

The three Annex A controls that you would expect the auditee to have implemented when you conduct the follow-up audit are:

B. 5.13 Labelling of information

E. 5.34 Privacy and protection of personal identifiable information (PII)

G. 6.3 Information security awareness, education, and training

B. This control requires the organisation to label information assets in accordance with the information classification scheme, and to handle them accordingly12. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to avoid misaddressing labels and sending parcels to wrong destinations, which could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information assets. By labelling the information assets correctly, the auditee could also ensure that they are delivered to the intended recipients and that they are protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.

E. This control requires the organisation to protect the privacy and the rights of individuals whose personal identifiable information (PII) is processed by the organisation, and to comply with the applicable legal and contractual obligations13. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to prevent the unauthorized use of residents’ personal data by a supplier, which could violate the privacy and the rights of the residents and their family members, and expose the auditee to legal and reputational risks. By protecting the PII of the residents and their family members, the auditee could also enhance their trust and satisfaction, and avoid complaints and disputes.

G. This control requires the organisation to ensure that all employees and contractors are aware of the information security policy, their roles and responsibilities, and the relevant information security procedures and controls14. This control is relevant for the auditee because it could help them to improve the information security culture and behaviour of their staff, and to reduce the human errors and negligence that could lead to information security incidents. By providing information security awareness, education, and training to their staff, the auditee could also increase their competence and performance, and ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the information security processes and controls.

The certification body had a valid reason to accept CyberShielding Systems Inc.’s objection, making option A the correct answer. ISO/IEC 17021-1 requires certification bodies to ensure that audit teams are competent and acceptable to the auditee, particularly where access to sensitive information, systems, or facilities is involved. Security clearance requirements set by the auditee are a legitimate consideration, especially for organizations operating in highly sensitive information security environments.

In this scenario, CyberShielding Systems Inc. operates in the cybersecurity sector and handles sensitive internal and customer information. Auditors without the necessary security clearance may be unable to access required information or systems, which would compromise the effectiveness and completeness of the audit. Accepting such an objection supports both audit quality and information protection.

Option B is incorrect because objections are not limited to cases of prior unprofessional conduct. Option C is incorrect because conflicts of interest are not the only valid grounds for objection. ISO/IEC 17021-1 allows auditees to object to auditors for justified reasons, including competence, impartiality, confidentiality, or access limitations.

Therefore, replacing the auditor due to insufficient security clearance was appropriate and consistent with certification body requirements and good auditing practice.

An intrinsic vulnerability refers to a weakness that is inherent to a system or tool, such as a data processing tool’s inability to perform bound checking on arrays. This characteristic makes the system susceptible to issues like buffer overflows, which can lead to crashes or other types of failures. References: = The concept of intrinsic vulnerability is based on the understanding that certain vulnerabilities are built into the system and are not influenced by external factors. This aligns with the general principles of information security management systems and the content typically covered in ISMS ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor training and certification programs

The auditee is required to submit action plans that include detailed information on how every corrective action will be implemented. General statements are not sufficient; the action plans must specify the corrective actions in detail to ensure that the root causes of the nonconformities are addressed effectively.

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.1, the organisation shall determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its information security management system (ISMS)12

External issues are factors outside the organisation that it cannot control, but can influence or adapt to. They include political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors that may affect the organisation’s information security objectives, risks, and opportunities12

Internal issues are factors within the organisation that it can control or change. They include the organisation’s structure, culture, values, policies, objectives, strategies, capabilities, resources, processes, activities, relationships, and performance that may affect the organisation’s information security management system12

Therefore, the following issues are considered ‘internal’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

Poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of developing and maintaining the competence of its personnel involved in the ISMS. The organisation can control or change its training expenditure and its impact on staff competence12

Poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s culture, value, and relationship with its employees. The organisation can control or change its staff holiday policy and its impact on staff morale12

Increased absenteeism as a result of poor management: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s performance, structure, and accountability of its management. The organisation can control or change its management practices and its impact on staff absenteeism12

A fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of ensuring the availability and suitability of its production equipment. The organisation can control or change its equipment maintenance and upgrade and its impact on productivity12

The following issues are considered ‘external’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

Higher labour costs as a result of an aging population: This is an external issue because it relates to the social and demographic factor that affects the availability and cost of labour in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the aging population, but can influence or adapt to its impact on labour costs12

A rise in interest rates in response to high inflation: This is an external issue because it relates to the economic and monetary factor that affects the cost and availability of capital in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the interest rates or inflation, but can influence or adapt to its impact on capital costs12

A reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and conditions of public funding for the organisation. The organisation cannot control or change the government policy, but can influence or adapt to its impact on grants12

Inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and cost of raw materials in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the government sanctions, but can influence or adapt to its impact on raw materials12

The audit team identified control risk, making option B the correct answer. Control risk refers to the risk that an organization’s internal controls will fail to prevent, detect, or correct a material issue or security weakness. In the scenario, the audit team identified a lack of oversight in the firewall configuration review process, where changes were implemented without proper approval. This clearly indicates a weakness in internal control mechanisms.

Firewall configuration management is a key security control area. The absence of proper approval and review processes increases the likelihood that unauthorized or insecure changes could be introduced, exposing the organization to vulnerabilities. This does not represent inherent risk, which relates to risks arising naturally from the nature of the business or environment. Instead, it highlights a failure in the design or operation of controls intended to manage those risks.

Option C is incorrect because detection risk relates to the possibility that auditors fail to identify existing issues during the audit. In this case, the auditors successfully identified the weakness, so detection risk is not applicable. Option A is incorrect because the issue does not stem from the inherent nature of CyberShielding’s operations but from inadequate control oversight.

Therefore, the identified issue is best classified as control risk, as it reflects deficiencies in internal control effectiveness within the ISMS.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), an organization should select and implement appropriate controls to achieve its information security objectives1. The controls should be derived from the results of risk assessment and risk treatment, and should be consistent with the Statement of Applicability (SoA), which is a document that identifies the controls that are applicable and necessary for the ISMS1. The controls can be selected from various sources, such as ISO/IEC 27002:2013, which provides a code of practice for information security controls2. Therefore, if an auditor in training has been tasked with reviewing the technological controls listed in the SoA and implemented at the site of an organization that stores data on behalf of external clients, four controls that would be expected to review are:

How protection against malware is implemented: This is a technological control that aims to prevent, detect and remove malicious software (such as viruses, worms, ransomware, etc.) that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity or availability of information or information systems2. This control is related to control A.12.2.1 of ISO/IEC 27002:20132.

How the organisation evaluates its exposure to technical vulnerabilities: This is a technological control that aims to identify and assess the potential weaknesses or flaws in information systems or networks that could be exploited by malicious actors or cause accidental failures2. This control is related to control A.12.6.1 of ISO/IEC 27002:20132.

How access to source code and development tools are managed: This is a technological control that aims to protect the intellectual property rights and integrity of software applications or systems that are developed or maintained by the organization or its external providers2. This control is related to control A.14.2.5 of ISO/IEC 27002:20132.

The operation of the site CCTV and door control systems: This is a technological control that aims to monitor and restrict physical access to the premises or facilities where information or information systems are stored or processed2. This control is related to control A.11.1.4 of ISO/IEC 27002:20132.

The other options are not examples of technological controls, but rather organizational, legal or procedural controls that may also be relevant for an ISMS audit, but are not within the scope of the auditor in training’s task. For example, the development and maintenance of an information asset inventory (related to control A.8.1.1), rules for transferring information within the organization and to other organizations (related to control A.13.2.1), confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements (related to control A.13.2.4), verification checks on personnel (related to control A.7.1.2), remote working arrangements (related to control A.6.2.1), information security within supplier agreements (related to control A.15.1.1), business continuity arrangements (related to control A.17), information deletion (related to control A.8.3), information security awareness, education and training (related to control A.7.2), equipment maintenance (related to control A.11.2), and how power and data cables enter the building (related to control A.11) are not technological controls, but rather organizational, legal or procedural controls that may also be relevant for an ISMS audit, but are not within the scope of the auditor in training’s task. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO/IEC 27002:2013 - Information technology – Security techniques – Code of practice for information security controls

The correct answer is A, because internal and external audits serve different but complementary purposes within an ISO/IEC 27001-based ISMS. Internal audits are conducted by or on behalf of the organization to regularly assess the effectiveness, conformity, and continual improvement of the ISMS. Their results help management identify weaknesses, risks, and opportunities for improvement before they become systemic issues.

ISO/IEC 27001 requires organizations to conduct internal audits at planned intervals to ensure the ISMS conforms to both internal requirements and the standard. These audits provide valuable input into management reviews, corrective actions, and readiness for external audits. In this way, internal audits act as an early warning and improvement mechanism.

External audits, conducted by an independent certification body, rely partly on the maturity demonstrated through internal audit outcomes. They verify whether the organization’s ISMS meets ISO/IEC 27001 requirements and whether internal audits are effective and properly implemented.

Option B is incorrect because internal audits are not passive reviews of external audit outputs; they are independent assessments with their own scope and objectives. Option C is incorrect because the roles are reversed: internal audits focus on ongoing internal improvement, while external audits focus on certification conformity.

Therefore, internal audits directly support and complement external audits by strengthening ISMS readiness and effectiveness.

The correct answer is A, because ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO 19011 require internal audits to be objective and impartial, but they do not impose an absolute prohibition on individuals holding both operational and audit roles. What is required is that auditors do not audit their own work and that conflicts of interest are avoided.

In smaller organizations, it is common for staff to perform multiple roles. ISO 19011 recognizes this reality and allows auditors to conduct internal audits provided they are independent of the activities being audited. Clearly documented job descriptions, role separation, and audit assignment controls help ensure impartiality.

Option B is incorrect because ISO standards do not mandate a fixed “cooling-off” period such as one year. The key consideration is whether the auditor is independent of the audited activities, not the passage of time. Option C is incorrect because it imposes an unrealistic and unnecessary restriction, especially for small or medium-sized organizations.

Objectivity is achieved through planning, role separation, competence, and management oversight, not by rigid role exclusion rules. Therefore, allowing auditors to perform unrelated operational roles with proper safeguards is acceptable and standards-compliant.

The major nonconformity related to storing sensitive information in removable media justifies the unfavorable recommendation for certification. This issue directly contradicts the information classification scheme's stipulations, indicating a significant oversight in enforcing the ISMS policies.

The purpose of a follow-up audit is to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified in a previous audit1. A follow-up audit is a type of audit that is conducted after an initial audit, and it focuses on the specific areas where nonconformities were found and corrective actions were agreed upon2. A follow-up audit can be conducted as a separate audit or as part of a scheduled audit, depending on the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the audit programme objectives3.

The other options are not the purpose of a follow-up audit, but rather the purpose of other types of audits. For example:

•Option A is the purpose of a performance audit, which is a type of audit that evaluates the effectiveness of the management system in achieving its intended results4.

•Option B is the purpose of a compliance audit, which is a type of audit that verifies the conformity of the management system with the specified requirements, such as the ISMS objectives5.

•Option C is the purpose of a process audit, which is a type of audit that examines the inputs, activities, outputs, and interactions of a specific process within the management system, such as the risk treatment process.

The four options for the actions you could take are A, C, F, and G. These options are consistent with the guidance and requirements of ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. You could agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified (A), and document the agreement in the audit report1. You could close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised ©, and report the outcome to the audit client and other relevant parties1. You could note the progress made but hold the audit open until all corrective action has been cleared (F), and determine the need for another follow-up audit or other actions1. You could also advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity (G), as they are responsible for the overall management and coordination of the audit programme3. The other options are either not appropriate or not necessary for the situation. You should not recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit (B), as this may compromise the audit objectives and the audit programme1. You should not recommend suspension of the organisation’s certification as they have failed to implement the agreed corrections and corrective actions within the agreed timescale (D), as this is not within your role or authority as an ISMS auditor4. You should not advise the auditee that you will arrange for the next audit to be an online audit to deal with the outstanding nonconformity (E), as this may not be feasible or effective depending on the nature and complexity of the nonconformity1. You should not conduct an unannounced follow-up audit on-site to review the one outstanding minor nonconformity once it has been cleared (H), as this may not be in accordance with the audit agreement or the audit programme1. References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.7 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 6: Closing an ISO/IEC 27001 audit \n3: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 5.3 \n4: ISO/IEC 27006:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems, Clause 9.6

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.6 requires the audit team leader to conduct a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at the end of the audit to present the audit conclusions and any findings1. The closing meeting should also provide an opportunity for the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1. Therefore, when preparing for the closing meeting, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

I will advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate our findings. It is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to collecting and evaluating audit evidence and reaching audit conclusions. The auditor should advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate their findings, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also explain that it is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these findings, as they have already been discussed and confirmed during the audit. However, the auditor should also invite the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1.

I will schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a planned and agreed audit programme and schedule. The auditor should schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented, in accordance with clause 6.6 of ISO 19011:20181. The auditor should also ensure that the closing meeting is attended by those responsible for managing or implementing the ISMS, as well as any other relevant parties1.

I will discuss any follow-up required with my audit team: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a risk-based approach to determining and reporting any follow-up actions required by the auditee or the certification body. The auditor should discuss any follow-up required with their audit team, such as verifying corrective actions for nonconformities or conducting a subsequent audit1. The auditor should also document any follow-up actions in the audit report1.

I will review and, as appropriate, approve my teams audit conclusions: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a rigorous and professional process to reaching and reporting audit conclusions. The auditor should review and, as appropriate, approve their teams audit conclusions, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also ensure that their teams audit conclusions are consistent with the audit objectives and scope, and reflect the overall performance and conformity of the ISMS1.

Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence that involves the use of algorithms and statistical models to enable systems to improve their performance on a specific task over time with experience or data, without being explicitly programmed. In the context of the scenario, machine learning would be the technology that allows the chatbot to learn from patterns in queries to provide the right answers.

If an organization like OrgXY informs the certification body that it is not ready to conduct the surveillance audit as scheduled, the certification may be suspended. This is because the surveillance audit is a critical part of the ongoing certification maintenance, required to ensure continued compliance with the standard.

One possible way to complete the sentence is:

“When reviewing the effectiveness of action taken in response to a nonconformity, an auditor seeks evidence of change that will prevent recurrence of the issue.”

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.1, the organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the ISMS by evaluating the performance and the effectiveness of the ISMS, ensuring that the policy and objectives are aligned with the strategic direction of the organization, and taking actions to achieve the intended outcomes of the ISMS. One of the ways to achieve continual improvement is to identify and correct nonconformities and take actions to eliminate their causes and prevent their recurrence. Therefore, when reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective actions, an auditor should look for evidence that the organization has analyzed the root cause of the nonconformity, implemented appropriate changes to the ISMS, and verified that the changes have resulted in the desired improvement and prevented the recurrence of the issue. References: =

ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.1, Nonconformity and corrective action

ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.2, Continual improvement

PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19, Audit Process

PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 21, Audit Findings

According to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 8.30, the organisation shall ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. This includes developing and entering into licensing agreements that cover code ownership and intellectual property rights, and implementing appropriate contractual requirements related to secure design and coding in accordance with Annex A 8.25 and 8.2912

In this case, the organisation and the developer have performed security tests that failed, which indicates that the secure design and coding requirements of Annex A 8.29 were not met. The IT Manager explains that the encryption and pseudonymization functions failed because they slowed down the system and service performance, and that an extra 150% of resources are needed to cover this. However, this does not justify the acceptance of the test results by the Service Manager, who is not authorised to approve the test according to the software security management procedure. The Service Manager should have consulted with the IT Manager, who is the owner of the process, and followed the procedure for handling nonconformities and corrective actions. The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service based on access control alone exposes the organisation to the risk of compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal data processed by the mobile app. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1, control A.8.30.

According to ISO 27001:2022 Clause 8.1, the organisation shall plan, implement and control the processes needed to meet information security requirements, and to implement the actions determined in Clause 6.1. The organisation shall also control planned changes and review the consequences of unintended changes, taking action to mitigate any adverse effects, as necessary12

In this case, the organisation has not controlled the planned change of the mobile app from version 1.0 to version 1.01, which was a minor update provided by the outsourced developer in response to frequent ransomware attacks. The IT Manager explains that the developer performed an emergency release of the updated software, and gave a verbal guarantee that there will be no impact on any security functions. However, this is not sufficient to ensure that the change is properly assessed, tested, documented, and approved before deployment. The IT Manager should have followed the change management process and procedure, and verified that the updated software meets the security requirements and does not introduce any new vulnerabilities or risks. The IT Manager’s reliance on his 20 years of information security experience and the developer’s verbal guarantee is not a valid basis for skipping the re-testing of the software. Therefore, there is a nonconformity (NC) with clause 8.1.

From Exact Extract:

1. Identification of potential impact

The scenario clearly states that the chatbot:

Sent random files to users

Encountered invalid inputs

Processed personally identifiable information (PII)

Operated in a live customer-facing environment

Sending random files to users represents a direct risk of unauthorized disclosure of information, which could include:

Customer records

Sensitive operational data

Personally identifiable information (PII)

This constitutes a customer privacy breach, which is a serious information security impact.

2. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 – Impact on confidentiality

Under ISO/IEC 27001:2022, one of the core objectives of an ISMS is to protect confidentiality, especially where PII is involved.

Clause 6.1.2 (Information security risk assessment) requires organizations to identify risks related to loss of confidentiality.

Clause 6.1.3 (Information security risk treatment) requires controls to be implemented where such risks exist.

A system that distributes random files creates a high-impact confidentiality risk.

3. ISO/IEC 27002:2022 – Privacy and PII protection

This scenario directly impacts Annex A control A.5.34 – Privacy and protection of PII, which requires organizations to:

Protect personal data against unauthorized access, disclosure, or misuse.

The chatbot’s behaviour violates the intent of this control and demonstrates a clear privacy impact.

4. Why the other options are incorrect

A. Temporary slowdown in internal system updatesThis is not supported by the scenario. There is no reference to internal system updates being affected.

C. Minor delays in customer service response timesWhile customer support was overwhelmed, the scenario describes a much more severe impact — uncontrolled file transmission and potential data exposure. This understates the risk.

Auditor Conclusion

The most significant and realistic impact arising from the chatbot issues is a breach of customer privacy due to the potential exposure of sensitive files. This aligns with ISO/IEC 27001’s focus on protecting confidentiality and PII.

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 requires the audit team leader to conduct a follow-up audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified during a previous audit1. The follow-up audit should be conducted in accordance with the same principles and processes as the initial audit, and should result in a conclusion on the status of the nonconformities and any remaining issues1. Therefore, when conducting a follow-up audit, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

Recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has cleared most of the nonconformities, including the major one, and only one minor nonconformity remains outstanding. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. Therefore, this finding does not prevent or preclude the continuation of certification, as long as it is addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should recommend that the outstanding minor nonconformity is dealt with at the next surveillance audit, which is a regular audit conducted by the certification body to confirm the ongoing conformity and effectiveness of an ISMS3.

Agree with the auditee/audit client how the remaining nonconformity will be cleared, by when, and how its clearance will be verified: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has demonstrated commitment and capability to implement corrective actions for the nonconformities identified during the previous audit. The auditor should agree with the auditee/audit client on a realistic, achievable, and effective corrective action plan for the remaining nonconformity, including a clear deadline and verification method. The auditor should also document this agreement in the follow-up audit report1.

Advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to conducting and reporting the follow-up audit. The auditor should advise the individual managing the audit programme of any decision taken regarding the outstanding nonconformity, such as recommending its closure at the next surveillance audit or agreeing on a corrective action plan with the auditee/audit client. The auditor should also provide sufficient information and evidence to support their decision1.

Close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the organisation has achieved satisfactory results in the follow-up audit. The auditor should close the follow-up audit as the organisation has demonstrated it is committed to clearing the nonconformities raised by implementing effective corrective actions for most of them and agreeing on a plan for the remaining one. The auditor should also communicate the follow-up audit conclusion to the auditee/audit client and other relevant parties1.

The audit team’s approach is in line with recommended auditing practices, making option A the correct answer. ISO management system audits, including ISO/IEC 27001 audits, are designed to provide reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance, that the management system conforms to the standard requirements. This principle is explicitly supported by ISO 19011 and ISO/IEC 17021-1.

In the scenario, the audit team assessed conformity by reviewing key processes, questioning responsible personnel, examining representative evidence, and evaluating control effectiveness. Although access to IT systems was limited, the auditors compensated by gathering sufficient and appropriate evidence through alternative means. This approach reflects the reality of auditing complex environments, particularly those involving third-party service providers.

Option B is incorrect because ISO standards do not require auditors to assess every process in full detail. Audits are sample-based by design. Expecting a complete, exhaustive assessment of each process would be impractical and inconsistent with audit principles. Option C is incorrect because assessing the ISMS as a whole is not merely an efficiency-driven decision; it is an accepted and intentional audit approach aimed at evaluating system-level effectiveness.

Therefore, obtaining reasonable assurance through a structured, evidence-based approach confirms that the audit team acted in accordance with recommended audit practices.

1. An auditor using a copy of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 to check that its requirements are met:

Termed: Reviewing audit criteria.

Justification: The auditor is comparing the auditee's information security management system (ISMS) against the established criteria outlined in the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 standard. This activity falls under the use of audit criteria to determine conformity or nonconformity.

2. An auditor's note that the auditee is not adhering to its clear desk policy:

Termed: Identifying an audit finding.

Justification: The auditor has observed a deviation from the auditee's established policy on clear desks. This observation is documented as a potential nonconformity, which requires further investigation and evaluation.

3. An auditor making a decision regarding the auditee's conformity or otherwise to criteria:

Termed: Determining an audit conclusion.

Justification: Based on the collected audit evidence and evaluation against the established criteria, the auditor forms an opinion about the overall compliance of the auditee's ISMS. This opinion is the audit conclusion and is a key element of the audit report.

4. An auditor examining verifiable records relevant to the audit process:

Termed: Collecting audit evidence.

Justification: The auditor is gathering objective and verifiable information to support their findings and conclusions. This information comes from various sources, including documents, records, interviews, and observations.

Yes, it is acceptable for the work documents of the audit team leader to be reviewed by another auditor after reaching audit conclusions. This is part of the quality control and assurance processes within the audit to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the audit conclusions.

From Exact Extract:

Explanation for C (Correct Response):

The audit team leader's primary responsibility is to manage the audit process effectively and efficiently according to the agreed-upon audit plan and schedule. A Stage 2 audit schedule is typically tightly managed to ensure all required elements of the management system are sampled within the allocated time. A 45-minute video presentation is a significant time commitment that would disrupt the planned audit activities. Politely but firmly stating the need to adhere to the schedule is professional and critical for maintaining audit integrity and achieving the audit objectives.

In the context of ISO/IEC 27001 audits, the audit team is appointed by the certification body, not by the organization being audited. Data Grid Inc. is responsible for specifying the audit criteria and defining the audit scope, but not for appointing the audit team.

Information security is a matter of building and maintaining trust. Trust is the confidence that information and information processing facilities are protected from unauthorized or malicious actions that could compromise their confidentiality, integrity or availability. Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, employees and other stakeholders who rely on the organization’s information and services. Trust is also a key factor for achieving compliance with legal, regulatory and contractual obligations, as well as meeting the organization’s own information security objectives and policies. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines information security as “preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information” (see clause 3.28) and states that “the purpose of an information security management system is to provide a framework for managing activities that influence the trustworthiness of information” (see Introduction). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Trust?

The only option that is not prohibited in acceptable use of information assets is C: company-wide e-mails with supervisor/TL permission. This option implies that the sender has obtained the necessary authorization from their supervisor or team leader to send an e-mail to all employees in the organization. This could be done for legitimate business purposes, such as announcing important news, events or updates that are relevant to everyone. However, this option should still be used sparingly and responsibly, as it could cause unnecessary disruption or annoyance to the recipients if abused or misused. The other options are prohibited in acceptable use of information assets, as they could violate the information security policies and procedures of the organization, as well as waste resources and bandwidth. Electronic chain letters (A) are messages that urge recipients to forward them to multiple other people, often with false or misleading claims or promises. They are considered spam and could contain malicious links or attachments that could compromise information security. E-mail copies to non-essential readers (B) are messages that are sent to recipients who do not need to receive them or have no interest in them. They are considered unnecessary and could clutter the inbox and distract the recipients from more important messages. Messages with very large attachments or to a large number of recipients (D) are messages that consume a lot of network resources and could affect the performance or availability of the information systems. They could also exceed the storage capacity or quota limits of the recipients’ mailboxes and cause problems for them. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to implement rules for acceptable use of assets (see clause A.8.1.3). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Acceptable Use?

The best action to take in this scenario is to determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas, such as CCTV. This action is consistent with the audit principle of evidence-based approach, which requires the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions1. By verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls, the auditor can assess the extent and impact of the nonconformity observed, and determine the appropriate audit finding and recommendation.

The other options are not the best actions to take in this scenario, because they are either premature or inappropriate. For example:

•Option A is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor’s role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. A large sign in reception may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.

•Option C is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.1 ‘security perimeters’ is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.

•Option D is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.

•Option E is inappropriate, because it is not related to the observed nonconformity, which is about the access control to secure areas, not the information security requirements agreed upon with the supplier. The auditor should not raise a nonconformity based on irrelevant or incorrect audit criteria4.

•Option F is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor’s role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. Requiring contractors to be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the audit reports should be produced by the audit team leader with input from the audit team, as they are responsible for collecting and analysing the audit evidence1. The audit reports should also include or refer to the audit plan, as it provides the basis for the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methodology2. Furthermore, the audit reports should be produced within an agreed timescale, as it is part of the audit programme management and ensures timely communication of the audit results3. Additionally, the audit reports should always be reviewed by the client, dated, and signed as ‘accepted’, as it confirms the audit completion and the formal agreement on the audit findings and conclusions4.

The other statements are false because:

Audit reports should not be sent to the organisation’s top management first because their contents could be embarrassing, as this would compromise the audit impartiality and confidentiality5. Audit reports should be distributed according to the audit programme procedures and the audit plan.

Audit reports should not be assumed suitable for general circulation unless they are specifically marked confidential, as this would violate the audit confidentiality and the protection of personal information. Audit reports should be treated as confidential documents and only shared with the authorised parties.

Audit reports should not only evidence nonconformity, as this would limit the audit scope and value. Audit reports should also evidence conformity, improvement opportunities, good practices, and audit observations.

Audit reports that are no longer required should not be destroyed as part of the organisation’s general waste, as this would pose a risk to the audit confidentiality and the information security. Audit reports should be retained, disposed, or destroyed according to the audit programme procedures and the applicable legal requirements.

 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 32, section 4.4.32: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.43: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 31, section 4.4.14: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 34, section 4.4.55: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 32, section 4.4.3. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 34, section 4.4.5.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

A. Correct Answer:

Joint audits involve multiple teams but require only one designated audit team leader to ensure:

Consistent audit methodology

Coordination among teams

Unified reporting structure

B. Incorrect:

While each team may have a coordinator, there is only one main leader responsible for the audit.

C. Incorrect:

ISO 19011 mandates the presence of a designated audit team leader in all audits.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 5.5.5 (Assigning Responsibility to the Audit Team Leader)

A follow-up audit may be carried out where nonconformities are major. This is true because a major nonconformity is a situation that raises significant doubt about the ability of the organization’s management system to achieve its intended results, and therefore requires immediate corrective action. A follow-up audit is necessary to verify the effectiveness of the corrective action and the conformity of the management system12.

A follow-up audit may be carried out where nonconformities are minor. This is true because a minor nonconformity is a situation that does not affect the capability of the management system to achieve its intended results, but represents a deviation from the specified requirements. A follow-up audit may be conducted to check the implementation of the corrective action and the improvement of the management system12.

The outcomes of a follow-up audit should be reported to top management and the audit team leader who carried out the audit where the nonconformities were initially identified. This is true because the top management is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness and continual improvement of the management system, and the audit team leader is accountable for the audit process and the audit conclusions. The follow-up audit report should provide them with objective evidence of the status of the nonconformities and the corrective actions taken by the auditee13.

The outcomes of a follow-up audit should be reported to the individual managing the audit programme and the audit client. This is true because the individual managing the audit programme is responsible for planning, implementing, monitoring and reviewing the audit activities, and the audit client is the organization or person requesting an audit. The follow-up audit report should inform them of the results of the follow-up audit and any changes in the certification status of the auditee13.

References :=

ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

Confidentiality is one of the principles of audit conduct that auditors should adhere to when performing audits. Confidentiality means that auditors should exercise discretion in the use and protection of information acquired in the course of their duties3. Auditors should respect the intellectual property rights of the auditee and other parties involved in the audit, and should not disclose any information that is sensitive, proprietary, or confidential without prior approval from the auditee or other authorized parties3. Auditors should also obtain the auditee’s permission before using a camera or recording equipment during an audit, as these devices may capture confidential information or infringe on the privacy of individuals3. Therefore, these two options correctly state the function of confidentiality in an audit. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant to confidentiality. For example, auditors are not forced by regulatory requirements to maintain confidentiality in an audit, but rather by ethical obligations and contractual agreements3. Observers in an audit team can access confidential information if they have signed a confidentiality agreement and have been authorized by the auditee3. Audit information can be used for improving personal competence by the auditor only if it does not compromise confidentiality or conflict with other interests3. As an auditor is always accompanied by a guide, there is still a risk to the auditee’s sensitive information if the guide is not trustworthy or authorized to access such information3. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, clause 9.4.9 requires the certification body to make a certification decision based on the information obtained during the audit and any other relevant information1. The certification body should also consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee to address any nonconformities identified during the audit1. Therefore, when making a recommendation to the audit programme manager, an ISMS auditor should consider the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the proposed corrective actions.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should recommend certification after their approval of the proposed corrective action plan and recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year. The auditor should provide the following justification for their recommendation:

Justification: This recommendation is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditee has only two minor nonconformities and one opportunity for improvement, which do not indicate a significant or systemic failure of their ISMS. A minor nonconformity is defined as a failure to achieve one or more requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or a situation which raises significant doubt about the ability of an ISMS process to achieve its intended output, but does not affect its overall effectiveness or conformity2. An opportunity for improvement is defined as a suggestion for improvement beyond what is required by ISO/IEC 27001:20222. Therefore, these findings do not prevent or preclude certification, as long as they are addressed by appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable time frame. The auditor should approve the proposed corrective action plan before recommending certification, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable, and effective. The auditor should also recommend that the findings can be closed out at a surveillance audit in 1 year, to verify that the corrective actions have been implemented and are working as intended.

The other options are not valid recommendations for the audit programme manager, as they are either too lenient or too strict for the given scenario. For example:

Recommend certification immediately: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to consider the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee before making a certification decision.

Recommend that a full scope re-audit is required within 6 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor overreacts or exaggerates the nonconformities, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a re-audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A full scope re-audit is usually reserved for major nonconformities or multiple minor nonconformities that indicate a serious or widespread failure of an ISMS.

Recommend that an unannounced audit is carried out at a future date: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor distrusts or doubts the auditee’s commitment or capability to implement corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to conduct unannounced audits only under certain conditions, such as when there are indications of serious problems with an ISMS or when required by sector-specific schemes.

Recommend that a partial audit is required within 3 months: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor imposes or prescribes a specific time frame or scope for verifying corrective actions, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182. It also contradicts the requirement of ISO/IEC 17021-1:20151, which requires the certification body to determine whether a partial audit is necessary based on the nature and extent of nonconformities and other relevant factors. A partial audit may be appropriate for minor nonconformities, but the time frame and scope should be agreed upon with the auditee and based on the proposed corrective action plan.

Yes, this action is acceptable. The internal audits being outsourced ensure independence and objectivity and allow the audit function to serve its advisory role effectively, in line with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. The independence enhances the credibility and reliability of the audit results.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing) requires auditors to consider all relevant evidence before making a final recommendation.

Clastus has the right to present additional evidence if they disagree with findings.

A. Incorrect:

Certification recommendations should remain open to valid new evidence until officially finalized.

C. Incorrect:

Auditors must consider revisions if they provide relevant clarification or evidence.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.3 (Handling Disputes and Additional Evidence in Audits)

A third-party audit team leader is a person who leads an audit team that conducts audits on behalf of an external organization, such as a certification body, that provides certification or accreditation services to other organizations12.

One of the main responsibilities of a third-party audit team leader is to act on behalf of the certification body, which means to represent its interests, policies, and procedures during the audit process12.

Acting on behalf of the certification body involves communicating with the audit client and the auditee, planning and conducting the audit, reporting and evaluating the audit results, and making recommendations for certification or accreditation decisions12.

Acting on behalf of the certification body also requires maintaining professional integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and competence throughout the audit process12.

References :=

ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems

ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

Prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit, Lawsy should review and confirm the audit plan with the certification body. This ensures that both parties agree on the objectives, scope, and procedures for the stage 2 audit, thus aligning expectations and facilitating a smoother audit process.

The auditor should verify if the information required by the standard is documented, without necessarily focusing on the format, as long as the content meets the requirements of the standard. ISO/IEC 27001 does not mandate a specific format for documentation, only that necessary information is appropriately documented, maintained, and controlled.

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

The benefits of implementing an ISMS are not limited to a reduction in information security risks, but also include improved business performance, customer satisfaction, legal compliance, and stakeholder confidence. The benefit of certifying an ISMS is not only to obtain contracts from governmental institutions, but also to demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to information security to other potential customers, partners, and regulators. The purpose of an ISMS is to apply a risk management process for preserving information security, which means identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and reviewing the information security risks that the organisation faces. The purpose of an ISMS is not to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements, but rather to ensure that the organisation meets its own information security objectives and obligations.

No, the audit scope should reflect all of the organization's divisions that are covered by the ISMS. If the ISMS scope stated that it includes the whole company, the audit scope should align with this unless specifically justified and agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Audit methods are the techniques and procedures that auditors use to collect and evaluate audit evidence. Audit methods can be classified into two categories: those that involve human interaction and those that do not. Human interaction methods are those that require direct or indirect communication with the auditee or other relevant parties, such as interviews, questionnaires, surveys, observations, or walkthroughs. Non-human interaction methods are those that do not require any communication with the auditee or other parties, such as document reviews, data analysis, or remote surveillance.

Some examples of audit methods that do not involve human interaction are:

Performing a review of auditee’s procedures in preparation for an audit: This method involves examining the auditee’s documented information, such as policies, processes, records, or reports, to verify their adequacy and effectiveness in meeting the audit criteria. The auditor does not need to interact with the auditee or anyone else to perform this method.

Analysing data by remotely accessing the auditee’s server: This method involves accessing and processing the auditee’s data, such as performance indicators, logs, metrics, or statistics, to verify their accuracy and reliability in meeting the audit criteria. The auditor does not need to interact with the auditee or anyone else to perform this method.

By using illegal versions of software, NightCore ignored the control about intellectual property rights under Annex A.8.1.1 of ISO/IEC 27001, which requires the protection of organizational records to include intellectual property and personal information held in the form of data or software.

B. 8.12 Data leakage protection. This is true because the auditee should have implemented measures to prevent unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, such as personal data, medical records, or official documents, that are contained in the parcels. Data leakage protection could include encryption, authentication, access control, logging, and monitoring of data transfers12.

D. 6.3 Information security awareness, education, and training. This is true because the auditee should have ensured that all employees and contractors involved in the shipping process are aware of the information security policies and procedures, and have received appropriate training on how to handle and protect the information assets in their custody. Information security awareness, education, and training could include induction programmes, periodic refreshers, awareness campaigns, e-learning modules, and feedback mechanisms13.

E. 7.10 Storage media. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to protect the storage media that contain information assets from unauthorized access, misuse, theft, loss, or damage. Storage media could include paper documents, optical disks, magnetic tapes, flash drives, or hard disks14. Storage media controls could include physical locks, encryption, backup, disposal, or destruction14.

F. 8.3 Information access restriction. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to restrict access to information assets based on the principle of least privilege and the need-to-know basis. Information access restriction could include identification, authentication, authorization, accountability, and auditability of users and systems that access information assets15.

I. 7.4 Physical security monitoring. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to monitor the physical security of the premises where information assets are stored or processed. Physical security monitoring could include CCTV cameras, alarms, sensors, guards, or patrols16. Physical security monitoring could help detect and deter unauthorized physical access or intrusion attempts16.

J. 5.13 Labelling of information. This is true because the auditee should have implemented controls to label information assets according to their classification level and handling instructions. Labelling of information could include markings, tags, stamps, stickers, or barcodes1 . Labelling of information could help identify and protect information assets from unauthorized disclosure or misuse1 .

References :=

ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Code of practice for information security controls

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements

ISO/IEC 27003:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Guidance

ISO/IEC 27004:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Monitoring measurement analysis and evaluation

ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management

ISO/IEC 27006:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems

[ISO/IEC 27007:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing]

This statement encapsulates the relationship between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets within the context of information security. Threats are potential causes of an unwanted incident, which may result in harm to a system or organization. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses that can be exploited by threats to cause harm. Assets are valuable resources to an organization that need protection. Therefore, when threats exploit vulnerabilities, they can damage or destroy assets. References: = The explanation is based on the foundational concepts of information security as outlined in ISO/IEC 27001, which includes understanding the interplay between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets as part of an information security management system (ISMS)

A. I will check the other data centres are treated as external providers, even though they are part of the same telecommunication group. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to ensure that externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system are controlled. Externally provided processes, products or services are those that are provided by any external party, regardless of the degree of its relationship with the organisation. Therefore, the other data centres within the same telecommunication group should be treated as external providers and subject to the same controls as any other external provider12

B. I will ensure external providers have a documented process in place to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security with external providers. One of the contractual requirements could be the obligation of the external provider to notify the organisation of any risks arising from the use of its products or services, such as security incidents, vulnerabilities, or changes that could affect the information security of the organisation. The external provider should have a documented process in place to ensure that such notification is timely, accurate, and complete12

E. I will ensure the organisation is regularly monitoring, reviewing and evaluating external provider performance. This is appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to monitor, review and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the externally provided processes, products or services. The organisation should have a process in place to measure and verify the conformity and suitability of the external provider’s deliverables and activities, and to provide feedback and improvement actions as necessary. The organisation should also maintain records of the monitoring, review and evaluation results12

F. I will ensure the organisation has determined the need to communicate with external providers regarding the ISMS. This is appropriate because clause 7.4.2 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to determine the need for internal and external communications relevant to the information security management system, including the communication with external providers. The organisation should define the purpose, content, frequency, methods, and responsibilities for such communication, and ensure that it is consistent with the information security policy and objectives. The organisation should also retain documented information of the communication as evidence of its implementation12

The following activities are not appropriate for the assessment of external providers according to ISO 27001:2022:

C. I will ensure that the organisation has a reserve external provider for each process it has identified as critical to preservation of the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of its information. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to have a reserve external provider for each critical process. The organisation may choose to have a contingency plan or a backup solution in case of failure or disruption of the external provider, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should assess the risks and opportunities associated with the external provider and determine the appropriate treatment options, which may or may not include having a reserve external provider12

D. I will limit my audit activity to externally provided processes as there is no need to audit externally provided products or services. This is not appropriate because clause 8.1.4 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the organisation to control the externally provided processes, products or services that are relevant to the information security management system. Externally provided products or services may include software, hardware, data, or cloud services that could affect the information security of the organisation. Therefore, the audit activity should cover both externally provided processes and products or services, as applicable12

G. I will ensure that top management have assigned roles and responsibilities for those providing external ISMS processes as well as internal ISMS processes. This is not appropriate because clause 5.3 of ISO 27001:2022 requires the top management to assign the roles and responsibilities for the information security management system within the organisation, not for the external providers. The external providers are responsible for assigning their own roles and responsibilities for the processes, products or services they provide to the organisation. The organisation should ensure that the external providers have adequate competence and awareness for their roles and responsibilities, and that they are contractually bound to comply with the information security requirements of the organisation12

H. I will ensure that the organisation ranks its external providers and allocates the majority of its work to those providers who are rated the highest. This is not appropriate because ISO 27001:2022 does not require the organisation to rank its external providers or to allocate its work based on such ranking. The organisation may choose to evaluate and compare the performance and effectiveness of its external providers, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The organisation should select and use its external providers based on the information security criteria and objectives that are relevant to the organisation12

The correct response is A, because grading criteria provide a common basis for the evaluation of nonconformities across the organization. Grading criteria are the rules or standards that define the severity or impact of nonconformities, and help to determine the appropriate corrective actions and follow-up activities. Grading criteria are important for several reasons, such as:

They ensure consistency and objectivity in the assessment and reporting of nonconformities, and avoid subjective or arbitrary judgments.

They facilitate the communication and understanding of nonconformities among the auditors, the auditees, and the audit clients, and enable the comparison and benchmarking of nonconformities across different processes, functions, or locations.

They support the prioritization and allocation of resources for the resolution of nonconformities, and the monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of the corrective actions.

They demonstrate the commitment and accountability of the organization to the continual improvement of the ISMS, and the compliance with the ISMS requirements and expectations.

The use of clear text passwords for authentication in FTP is a vulnerability because it is a weakness that can be exploited by threat actors. Clear text passwords can be intercepted easily by network sniffers or through man-in-the-middle attacks, making them a significant security risk1. References: = This explanation is consistent with the understanding of vulnerabilities within the field of information security, particularly as it relates to network protocols like FTP and their associated risks

According to ISO 27001:2022, the standard for information security management systems (ISMS), the correct sequence for the information security risk assessment process is as follows:

Establish information security criteria

Identify the information security risks

Analyse the information security risks

Evaluate the information security risks

The first step is to establish the information security criteria, which include the risk assessment methodology, the risk acceptance criteria, and the risk evaluation criteria. These criteria define how the organization will perform the risk assessment, what level of risk is acceptable, and how the risks will be compared and prioritized.

The second step is to identify the information security risks, which involve identifying the assets, threats, vulnerabilities, and existing controls that are relevant to the ISMS. The organization should also identify the potential consequences and likelihood of each risk scenario.

The third step is to analyse the information security risks, which involve estimating the level of risk for each risk scenario based on the criteria established in the first step. The organization should also consider the sources of uncertainty and the confidence level of the risk estimation.

The fourth step is to evaluate the information security risks, which involve comparing the estimated risk levels with the risk acceptance criteria and determining whether the risks are acceptable or need treatment. The organization should also prioritize the risks based on the risk evaluation criteria and the objectives of the ISMS.

Yes, a change in the scope should be initiated because outsourcing a significant part of the service, such as technical support related to web hosting, could impact the risk landscape and the controls needed to manage those risks. This change affects the external environment and how the ISMS operates, necessitating a scope review and possible adjustment.

Audit evidence should be evaluated against the audit criteria in order to determine audit findings.

Audit evidence is the information obtained by the auditors during the audit process that is used as a basis for forming an audit opinion or conclusion12. Audit evidence could include records, documents, statements, observations, interviews, or test results12.

Audit criteria are the set of policies, procedures, standards, regulations, or requirements that are used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared12. Audit criteria could be derived from internal or external sources, such as ISO standards, industry best practices, or legal obligations12.

Audit findings are the results of a process that evaluates audit evidence and compares it against audit criteria13. Audit findings can show that audit criteria are being met (conformity) or that they are not being met (nonconformity). They can also identify best practices or improvement opportunities13.

References :=

ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements

Components of Audit Findings - The Institute of Internal Auditors

A legal technical expert (LTE) is a person who provides specific knowledge or expertise related to the legal aspects of the information security management system (ISMS) during a certification audit. The LTE is not an auditor, but a member of the audit team who supports the auditors in collecting and evaluating the audit evidence. The LTE is not responsible for evaluating the auditee’s legal knowledge, criticising the organisation’s legal compliance issues, or debating complex legal points with the auditee, as these tasks may be beyond the scope of the audit, or may compromise the objectivity and impartiality of the audit. The LTE is responsible for advising on legal checkpoints for the audit team, such as the applicable legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements, the relevant sources of information, the methods of verification, and the criteria of evaluation. The LTE is also responsible for verifying the legal status of the organisation, such as the registration, licensing, authorisation, or accreditation of the organisation, and the compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. References:

What is the role of a technical expert in ISO audit?

Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities for ISO 27001 5.3

Guide to Become an ISO 27001 Lead Auditor

Internal audits and external audits are integral components of the certification cycle, ensuring regular monitoring of the management system. Internal audits help organizations prepare for external audits by identifying and addressing potential nonconformities, while external audits validate the compliance of the management system with ISO/IEC 27001 standards.

Yes, Jack should communicate such situations to the certification body. It is essential for auditors to report potential nonconformities and ethical breaches to the certification body to maintain the integrity and credibility of the audit process, without necessarily informing top management of these steps.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

B. Correct Answer:

Corroboration is the process of validating verbal statements with documented evidence.

ISO 19011:2018 emphasizes cross-verification of audit evidence to ensure accuracy.

A. Incorrect:

Observation involves witnessing real-time processes, but here, the audit team compared interview data with documentation.

C. Incorrect:

Evaluation assesses compliance with criteria, but corroboration focuses on evidence validation.

Relevant Standard Reference:

ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.4.7 (Corroboration of Audit Evidence)

Regular security awareness and training sessions for employees are a control measure aimed at preventing security incidents by ensuring that personnel are aware of information security threats and concerns, and understand their roles and responsibilities in safeguarding organizational assets. This proactive approach is designed to educate employees on the importance of security practices and to avoid the occurrence of security incidents. References: = This answer is based on the principles of personnel security management as outlined in ISO/IEC 27001, particularly in Annex A.7 which deals with human resource security before, during, and after employment, and Annex A.9 which focuses on access control and ensuring that employees have access only to the information that is necessary for their job role

 Integrity of data means accuracy and completeness of the data. Integrity is one of the three main objectives of information security, along with confidentiality and availability. Integrity ensures that information and systems are not corrupted, modified, or deleted by unauthorized actions or events. Data should be viewable at all times is not related to integrity, but to availability. Data should be accessed by only the right people is not related to integrity, but to confidentiality. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 24. : [ISO/IEC 27001 Brochures | PECB], page 4.