PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Dumps

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), control 5.7 requires an organization to establish and maintain a threat intelligence process to identify and evaluate information security threats that are relevant to its ISMS scope and objectives1. The organization should use internal and external sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that can be used to support risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control 5.7, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Three options that represent valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7 are:

• I will review the organisation’s threat intelligence process and will ensure that this is fully documented: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process that is consistent with its ISMS scope and objectives. It can also verify that the process is documented according to clause 7.5 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
• I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the organisation’s information assets: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used threat intelligence to support its risk assessment and treatment, as well as other information security activities, such as incident response, awareness, or monitoring. It can also verify that the organization has achieved its information security objectives according to clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.
• I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence: This option is valid because it can provide evidence of how the organization has used various sources of information, such as vulnerability databases, threat feeds, industry reports, etc., to produce threat intelligence that is relevant and reliable. It can also verify that the organization has complied with the requirement of control 5.7 of ISO/IEC 27001:20221.

The other options are not valid audit trails for verifying control 5.7, as they are not related to the control or its requirements. For example:

• I will speak to top management to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of reporting threats: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding information security awareness or communication, but not specifically to control 5.7.
• I will ensure that the task of producing threat intelligence is assigned to the organisation s internal audit team: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also contradict the requirement for auditor independence and objectivity, as recommended by ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
• I will ensure that the organisation’s risk assessment process begins with effective threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also imply a prescriptive approach to risk assessment that is not consistent with ISO/IEC 27005:20183, which provides guidelines for information security risk management.
• I will review how information relating to information security threats is collected and evaluated to produce threat intelligence: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may also be too vague or broad to be an effective audit trail, as it does not specify what criteria or methods are used for collecting and evaluating information.
• I will ensure that appropriate measures have been introduced to inform top management as to the effectiveness of current threat intelligence arrangements: This option is not valid because it does not provide evidence of how the organization has established and maintained a threat intelligence process or used threat intelligence to support its ISMS activities. It may be related to another control or requirement regarding management review or performance evaluation, but not specifically to control 5.7.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, ISO/IEC 27005:2018 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security risk management

The use of probability theory in the sample selection process indicates that "statistical sampling" was used. Statistical sampling allows auditors to make inferences about the population based on the properties of the sample, relying on the principles of probability to select representative elements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Audit methods are techniques used by auditors to obtain audit evidence. Audit methods can be classified into two categories: those that involve human interaction and those that do not2. Audit methods that involve human interaction require direct communication between the auditor and the auditee or other relevant parties, such as interviews, questionnaires, surveys, meetings, etc. Audit methods that do not involve human interaction rely on observation, inspection, measurement, testing, sampling, analysis, etc., without requiring any verbal or written exchange2. Therefore, performing an independent review of procedures in preparation for an audit and reviewing the auditee’s response to an audit finding are examples of audit methods that involve human interaction, as they require reading and evaluating documents provided by the auditee or other sources. On the other hand, analysing data by remotely accessing the auditee’s server and observing work performed by remote surveillance are examples of audit methods that do not involve human interaction, as they do not require any direct communication with the auditee or other parties. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Knowledge is the understanding of facts, concepts, principles, theories and practices related to a specific subject or discipline. Skills are the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems. According to ISO 19011:2018, the knowledge and skills of an auditor include the following:

• Knowledge of audit principles, procedures and methods
• Knowledge of management system standards and reference documents
• Knowledge of the organization’s context, scope, processes and objectives
• Knowledge of relevant legal, regulatory and contractual requirements
• Knowledge of applicable industry, sector or technical disciplines
• Knowledge of risk management and risk-based thinking
• Skill in collecting and verifying information
• Skill in evaluating conformity and effectiveness of management systems
• Skill in reporting and communicating audit results
• Skill in managing audit activities and teams

Based on this, the activities that are predominately related to knowledge are designing a checklist and determining what evidence to gather, as they require the auditor to understand the audit criteria, scope, objectives and methods, as well as the organization’s context, processes and risks. The other activities are more related to skills, as they involve applying knowledge and using know-how to perform tasks and solve problems during the audit.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems, clauses 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3
• PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 9-10 and 16-17
• ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance on: Auditing Competence, pages 2-3 and 8

Lawsy's lack of specific procedures for the use of laptops outside the workplace, despite allowing such use, represents a nonconformity. ISO/IEC 27001 requires that security controls and management processes be clearly defined, documented, and implemented. Relying solely on employees' common knowledge does not fulfill the standard's requirements for managing information security risks associated with mobile and teleworking.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.6.2 (Mobile device and teleworking management)

The options that represent valid audit trails for assessing the organisation's application of control 5.7 - Threat Intelligence, according to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, are:

Option A: I will determine whether internal and external sources of information are used in the production of threat intelligence. This is relevant because effective threat intelligence typically requires gathering information from multiple sources to be comprehensive.

Option D: I will check that the organisation has a fully documented threat intelligence process. Proper documentation is a core requirement in ISO standards to ensure processes are defined, implemented, and maintained consistently.

Option E: I will check that threat intelligence is actively used to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the organisation's information assets. This verifies that the output of threat intelligence is being used effectively within the organisation's information security practices.

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.

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.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material; ISO/IEC 27001:2013, general guidelines on certification and surveillance requirements

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 8.1 requires an organization to plan, implement and control its processes needed to meet ISMS requirements2. This includes determining what needs to be done, how it will be done, who will do it, when it will be done, what resources are required, how performance will be evaluated, etc2. Therefore, if an ISMS auditor conducting a third-party surveillance audit of a telecom’s provider notes that there has been a significant increase in the number of switches failing their initial configuration test and being returned for reprogramming due to a recent ISMS upgrade that reduced access to work instructions, this indicates a nonconformity against clause 8.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. The organization has failed to plan and control its operational processes effectively to ensure information security and quality2. The other options are not correct clauses to raise a nonconformity against based solely on this information. For example, clause 7.5 deals with documented information required by ISMS or determined by an organization as necessary for its effectiveness2, but it does not specify how many copies or formats of work instructions should be available; clause 10.2 deals with nonconformity and corrective action as a response to an identified problem or incident2, but it does not address how to prevent or avoid such problems or incidents in operational processes; clause 7.3 deals with awareness of ISMS policy, objectives, roles and responsibilities among persons doing work under an organization’s control2, but it does not relate to how work instructions are accessed or followed; clause 7.2 deals with competence of persons doing work under an organization’s control that affects its ISMS performance2, but it does not imply that lack of competence is caused by insufficient work instructions; clause 7.4 deals with communication about ISMS among internal and external interested parties2, but it does not cover how operational information is communicated within an organization. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements

The audit report is a confidential document that contains sensitive information about the auditee’s ISMS and its performance. The audit team has a duty to protect the confidentiality of the audit report and only disclose it to authorized parties, such as the audit client, the certification body, and the accreditation body. Therefore, the following responses are false:

• A: The audit team cannot decide to release the report to third parties without the consent of the audit client, as this would breach the confidentiality agreement and the audit code of conduct. The audit team should always inform the audit client before disclosing the report to any third party, and obtain their explicit, prior approval.
• F: Not every auditor employed by the auditing organization can access the audit report, as this would violate the principle of need-to-know. Only auditors who are involved in the audit process, such as the audit team leader, the audit team members, the audit programme manager, and the certification decision maker, can access the audit report. Other auditors who are not related to the audit have no legitimate reason to access the report, and should be prevented from doing so by appropriate security measures.
• G: The duty of confidentiality does not expire after a certain period of time, as this would compromise the trust and integrity of the audit process. The audit report remains confidential indefinitely, unless there is a legal or contractual obligation to disclose it, or the audit client agrees to release it. Third parties cannot access the audit report by making a subject access request, as this would infringe the privacy and data protection rights of the audit client and the auditee.
• H: Subcontracted auditors are not considered to be third parties regarding confidentiality, as they are part of the audit team and have a contractual relationship with the auditing organization. Subcontracted auditors are typically bound by the same confidentiality agreement and audit code of conduct as the employed auditors, and have the same rights and responsibilities to access and protect the audit report.

References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 9.2, Internal audit
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015, clause 7.2.3, Confidentiality
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 22, Audit Report
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, Audit Code of Conduct

Integrity is one of the basic components of information security, along with confidentiality and availability. Integrity means that information is safeguarded from unauthorized or accidental changes that could affect its accuracy and completeness. Integrity ensures that information is reliable and trustworthy3. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course - BSI

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

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.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems [Section 6.2.2]

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the auditor in training should review the organisational controls that are related to the information security policy, the roles and responsibilities, the information classification, the information exchange, the supplier relationships, and the information asset management1. These controls are aligned with the ISO/IEC 27001 requirements for clauses 5, 7, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.42. The other controls (A, D, G, and H) are more relevant to the physical and environmental security, the communications security, or the business continuity management, which are not part of the organisational controls3. References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 42, section 5.2.32: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clauses 5, 7, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.43: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clauses 8.1, 8.5, and 8.6.

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.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

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 Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is a four-step method for implementing and improving processes, products, or services. The “plan” phase involves establishing the objectives and processes necessary to deliver the desired results. This may include setting SMART goals, identifying resources, defining roles and responsibilities, conducting risk assessments, and developing plans for training, communication, and monitoring.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems [Section 5.3.1]

The non-conformity you have identified relates to the organization's failure to implement adequate operational controls to ensure that service and regulatory requirements for data protection are met. This situation is particularly critical given the nature of the items being shipped, which include sensitive medical information and government documents. The fact that 15% of returned parcels have labels for different addresses, potentially exposing sensitive information to incorrect recipients, underscores the lack of effective information security practices.

The best description of the non-conformity, based on the details provided and the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, particularly clause 8.1 which deals with operational planning and control, would be:

C. The organisation does not have an effective process in place that ensures service requirements and regulatory requirements for data protection are met. Records show that 15% of returned parcels have disclosed information intended for another party to the recipient (which may include sensitive medical information or government department communications) without adequate operational controls to meet information security requirements.

This option accurately captures the essence of the non-conformity by highlighting the lack of effective operational controls to protect sensitive information, leading to potential unauthorized disclosure of information intended for another party. This is a direct violation of information security management principles, particularly those related to the protection of confidentiality and integrity of information as mandated by ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

Yes, it is acceptable for Sinvestment to request that the review of documented information occur on-site. The company has the right to stipulate that no documents be carried off-site, especially to maintain control over sensitive information and ensure confidentiality, which aligns with the security controls expected in ISO/IEC 27001.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 7.5 (Documented information)

This scenario represents a conformity because ABC Inc. has implemented procedures for managing removable storage media that align with the classification scheme of the information stored. When information is classified as "confidential," more stringent procedures apply, whereas for "public" information, the procedures focus only on integrity and availability, following the organization's defined information classification policy.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.8.2 (Information classification)

The three options of the correct responses of an audit team leader to the request of the Technical Director are:

• B. Advise the Technical Director that his request will be included in the audit report.
• D. Advise the Technical Director that the nonconformity must stand since the evidence obtained for it was clear.
• H. State that a follow up audit will be necessary to review the evidence for the updated Statement of Applicability.

• B. This response is correct because the audit team leader should document the request of the Technical Director and include it in the audit report, along with the audit findings and conclusions12. This will ensure transparency and traceability of the audit process and the audit results.
• D. This response is correct because the audit team leader should not withdraw the nonconformity based on the amended Statement of Applicability alone. The nonconformity was raised against clause 6.1.3.e of ISO 27001:2022, which requires the organisation to produce and maintain a risk treatment plan that defines how the information security risks are treated, including the controls selected and their implementation status34. The Statement of Applicability is only one part of the risk treatment plan, and it does not provide sufficient evidence that the controls have been implemented effectively. The audit team leader should base the nonconformity on the objective evidence obtained during the audit, not on the subjective claims of the auditee12.
• H. This response is correct because the audit team leader should state that a follow up audit will be necessary to review the evidence for the updated Statement of Applicability. A follow up audit is an audit that is conducted after a previous audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions and/or opportunities for improvement that were agreed upon as a result of the previous audit56. The follow up audit should seek to ensure that the nonconformity has been effectively addressed and that the ISMS is compliant and effective. The follow up audit should also consider any new or changed risks or requirements that may affect the ISMS56.

References:

1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 25 2: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.1.3.e 4: ISO/IEC 27005:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management, clause 8.3.2 5: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 25 6: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7

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.

References: 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.

A threat in information security is any circumstance or event with the potential to cause harm to an information system through unauthorized access, destruction, disclosure, modification of data, and/or denial of service. The situation where hackers compromise an administrator’s account by cracking the password represents a direct threat to the security of the information system. References: = This explanation is based on general information security principles and the typical content covered in ISMS ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor training and certification programs. It aligns with the knowledge expected of a professional with an ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor certification

The Check stage of the PDCA cycle involves monitoring and measuring the performance of the process and comparing it with the planned objectives and criteria. In the context of managing an internal audit programme, this stage includes verifying the effectiveness of the internal audit programme by evaluating whether it meets its objectives, scope, and criteria, and whether it is implemented in accordance with ISO 19011 guidelines1. It also includes reviewing the trends in internal audit results by analyzing the data collected from the audits, such as audit findings, nonconformities, corrective actions, opportunities for improvement, and customer feedback1. References: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

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 pseudonymisation 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.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

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.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 5.2; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 6.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018

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.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

No, a general action plan is not acceptable in this context because it lacks specific details on systems, controls, or operations impacted by the nonconformities. An effective action plan should detail the specific corrective actions for each nonconformity to ensure comprehensive resolution and prevent recurrence.

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.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.4 (Logging and monitoring)

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.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 7.2 (Competence)

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:
• 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.

References:

• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-25
• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• The ISO 27001 audit process | ISMS.online

The correct options for how the auditor should respond are:

• A. Advise the MSR that an extension of the scope may be incorporated but will have to go through established procedures
• D. Determine whether the Management System covers the processes at the new site and, if so, proceed with the audit

These options are consistent with the ISO/IEC 27006:2015 standard, which states that any changes to the scope of certification should be notified by the client to the certification body, and that the certification body should evaluate and decide on these changes in accordance with its procedures1. The auditor should also verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at all sites included in the scope of certification1.

The other options are not appropriate for how the auditor should respond, because:

• B. Advise the MSR that the audit scope has been determined based on their initial application so the audit has to proceed as planned: This option is too rigid and does not allow for any flexibility or adaptation to the client’s situation. The auditor should be open to consider any changes to the scope of certification that may have occurred since the initial application, as long as they are properly notified and evaluated by the certification body.
• C. Suggest that the MSR cancels the audit contract and reapplies for the new situation: This option is too drastic and unnecessary, as it would cause delays and costs for both the client and the certification body. The auditor should not suggest that the client cancels the audit contract, but rather that they follow the established procedures for requesting and approving an extension of the scope of certification.
• E. Advise the MSR that, within the existing scope, the new work area can be included without any problem: This option is too lenient and does not ensure that the new work area meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and the ISMS. The auditor should not assume that the new work area can be included within the existing scope without any problem, but rather that they need to verify that the ISMS is implemented and maintained at the new site, and that any changes to the scope of certification are approved by the certification body.
• F. Confirm that the auditor will advise the auditee that the audit scope will be revised to include the new work area: This option is too presumptuous and does not respect the authority of the certification body. The auditor should not confirm that they will revise the audit scope to include the new work area, but rather that they will advise the certification body of the client’s request for an extension of the scope of certification, and wait for their decision.

The evidence provided by SendPay, which is solely verbal confirmation about the monitoring of outsourced operations, is not considered reliable under ISO/IEC 27001. The standard requires documented evidence to support claims of effective monitoring and control over outsourced processes.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause A.15 (Supplier relationships)

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.

References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a framework that describes the key elements of an effective software process. It defines five levels of maturity for software development organizations, from initial to optimized. The CMM helps organizations to assess their current level of process capability and identify the areas for improvement1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - IECB

• D. This statement is true because the audit team leader should communicate the audit plan to the audit client and the auditee, and obtain their approval before conducting the audit12. The audit plan should include the audit objectives, scope, criteria, methods, schedule, resources, roles and responsibilities, and other relevant information12. The audit plan should also be reviewed and updated as necessary during the audit process, and any changes should be agreed upon by the audit team leader, the audit client, and the auditee12. The purpose of reviewing and agreeing on the audit plan is to ensure that the audit is conducted in an efficient and effective manner, and that the audit expectations and requirements are clear and consistent among all parties involved.

References:

1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 23 2: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.2

Qualitative evidence in an audit typically involves observations, interviews, and reviews that provide insights into the processes and compliance through subjective but informed assessments. An interview with information security personnel to validate compliance with the standard requirements is an example of qualitative evidence, where the quality and effectiveness of processes are assessed based on expert judgments rather than measurable metrics.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the auditee should take the following actions in response to a nonconformity against clause 6.1.3.e of ISO/IEC 27001:20221:

• Implement the appropriate risk treatment for each of the applicable controls, as this is the main requirement of clause 6.1.3.e and the objective of the risk treatment process2.
• Revise the relevant content in the Statement of Applicability to justify their exclusion, as this is the expected output of the risk treatment process and the evidence of the risk-based decisions3.
• Revisit the risk assessment process relating to the three controls, as this is the input for the risk treatment process and the source of identifying the risks and the controls4.

The other options are not correct because:

• Allocating responsibility for producing evidence to prove to auditors that the controls are implemented is not a valid action, as the audit team already found that there was no evidence of the implementation of the three controls.
• Compiling plans for the periodic assessment of the risks associated with the controls is not a valid action, as this is part of the risk monitoring and review process, not the risk treatment process5.
• Incorporating written procedures for the controls into the organisation’s Security Manual is not a valid action, as this is part of the documentation and operation of the ISMS, not the risk treatment process.
• Removing the three controls from the Statement of Applicability is not a valid action, as this is not a sufficient justification for their exclusion and does not reflect the risk treatment process.
• Undertaking a survey of customers to find out if the controls are needed by them is not a valid action, as this is not a relevant criterion for the risk assessment and treatment process, which should be based on the organisation’s own context and objectives.

References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 36, section 4.5.22: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.e3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.f4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.25: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.2. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.5 and 8. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.d. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 4.1 and 4.2.

The two true statements are B and E. According to ISO 19011:2022, the audit plan describes the arrangements for a set of one or more audits planned for a specific time frame and directed towards a specific purpose1, while the audit programme describes the activities and arrangements for an audit2. The other options are either false or irrelevant. The responsibility for managing the audit programme rests with the audit programme manager, not the audit team leader (A)3. The audit plan can be changed during the conducting of the audit if necessary, with the agreement of the audit client and the auditee ©4. The audit programme and the audit plan are not the same thing, so D and F are incorrect. References: 1: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 3.8 \n2: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 3.9 \n3: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 5.3.1 \n4: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 6.4.2

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.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 5.3
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19

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.

The following are guidelines to protect your password, except for easy recall use the same password for company and personal accounts; do not share passwords with anyone. Using the same password for company and personal accounts is not a guideline to protect your password, as it increases the risk of compromising your password if one of your accounts is hacked or breached. You should use different and unique passwords for each account, and change them regularly. Sharing passwords with anyone is not a guideline to protect your password, as it reduces the security and accountability of your password. You should keep your password confidential and never disclose it to anyone, even if they claim to be authorized or trustworthy. Don’t use the same password for various company system security access is a guideline to protect your password, as it prevents unauthorized access or misuse of your password if one of the systems is compromised or breached. You should use different and complex passwords for each system, and follow the password policies and standards of the organization. Change a temporary password on first log-on is a guideline to protect your password, as it prevents unauthorized access or misuse of your password if the temporary password is intercepted or leaked. You should change the temporary password to a personal and secure password as soon as possible, and avoid using default or predictable passwords. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 43. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 15.

The Statement of Applicability (SoA) is a core document within an ISMS that outlines the security controls an organization implements. When a new control, such as the SSH protocol, is implemented, it should be included in the SoA to reflect the current state of the ISMS. The SoA should be updated to justify the inclusion of the new control and to document how it is implemented within the organization12. References: = This guidance is based on the best practices for maintaining the SoA as per ISO/IEC 27001, which requires the SoA to be a living document that accurately reflects the security controls in use by the organization

Based on the understanding of follow-up audits, especially in the context of Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) and the guidelines provided by ISO 19011:2018, here are the four questions from your list that the auditor in training has answered correctly:

B. Q: Should follow-up audits seek to ensure nonconformities have been effectively addressed? A: YES This is correct. The primary purpose of follow-up audits is to verify that nonconformities identified in previous audits have been effectively addressed and the corrective actions taken are suitable and effective.

D. Q: Is the purpose of a follow-up audit to verify the completion of corrections, corrective actions, and opportunities for improvement? A: YES Yes, the follow-up audit aims to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrections and corrective actions. It may also consider the implementation of opportunities for improvement identified during the initial audit.

E. Q: Are follow-up audits required for all audits? A: NO This is correct. Follow-up audits are not automatically required for all audits. They are typically conducted when nonconformities or other significant issues were identified in an earlier audit and there's a need to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions.

H. Q: Could an outcome from a follow-up audit be another follow-up audit if required? A: YES Yes, this is a possible outcome. If the follow-up audit finds that the corrective actions have not been fully effective, or if new issues are identified, it may be necessary to conduct another follow-up audit.

The other responses provided by the auditor in training require some clarification or correction. For instance, while a follow-up audit primarily focuses on previously identified nonconformities and corrective actions, it can still identify new nonconformities if observed (A). Opportunities for improvement are generally considered in the scope of regular audits more so than in follow-up audits, which are more narrowly focused on corrective actions (C). Also, the outcomes of follow-up audits should typically be reported to both the audit team leader and the audit client (F and G), ensuring transparency and accountability.

 The four questions that the auditor in training has answered correctly are B, D, E, and H. These questions and answers are consistent with the definition and purpose of a follow-up audit as specified in ISO 19011:2018, Clause 6.712. A follow-up audit is conducted to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken as a result of a previous audit (B, D). Follow-up audits are not mandatory for all audits, but they may be required by the audit program, the audit client, or other interested parties (E). The outcome of a follow-up audit may be another follow-up audit if the corrective actions are not satisfactory or not completed within the agreed time frame (H). The other questions and answers are either incorrect or irrelevant. A follow-up audit should not seek to identify new nonconformities, as this is not its objective (A). Follow-up audits should consider agreed opportunities for improvement as well as corrective actions, as they are both outputs of a previous audit ©. The outcome of a follow-up audit should be reported to the audit client, as well as to other relevant parties, such as the audit team leader who carried out the previous audit (F, G). 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

The two statements that are valid audit conclusions are:

•The ISMS policy has been effectively communicated to the organisation

•The organisation’s ISMS objectives meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO 19011:2018, an audit conclusion is the outcome of an audit, provided by the audit team after considering the audit objectives and all audit findings1. An audit conclusion can be positive or negative, depending on whether the audit criteria are fulfilled or not. An audit conclusion can also include recommendations for improvement or recognition of good practices.

The statements D and E are valid audit conclusions, because they express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. For example:

•Statement D is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 5.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the ISMS policy must be communicated within the organisation and to relevant interested parties2. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of communication, awareness activities, feedback, etc.

•Statement E is a positive audit conclusion, because it indicates that the organisation has fulfilled the requirement of clause 6.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must establish ISMS objectives that are consistent with the ISMS policy and relevant to the information security risks3. The audit team must have obtained sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support this conclusion, such as records of objective setting, risk assessment, alignment with policy, etc.

The other statements are not valid audit conclusions, because they do not express the outcome of the audit based on the audit criteria and findings. They are rather examples of audit findings, which are the results of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against the audit criteria4. Audit findings can indicate either conformity or nonconformity with the audit criteria, or opportunities for improvement. For example:

•Statement A is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 7.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must provide information security awareness education and training to persons under its control5. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement B is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must maintain and review the information security risk assessment at planned intervals or when significant changes occur6. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement C is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must take action to eliminate the causes of nonconformities and prevent recurrence7. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

•Statement F is a negative audit finding, because it indicates a nonconformity with the requirement of clause 6.1.3 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organisation must determine the controls that are necessary to implement the risk treatment plan, and document them in the statement of applicability8. The audit team must have identified and documented this nonconformity, and reported it to the auditee.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.15; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.2.2; 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.2.2; 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.2; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 10.1; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 6.1.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the audit team leader should obtain information about the additional sites to inform the individual(s) managing the audit programme, as this may affect the audit objectives, scope, criteria, duration, resources, and risks. The audit team leader should also review the audit plan and make any necessary adjustments in consultation with the auditee and the audit client1. References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 27, section 4.3.2.2.

The correct action to take in this situation is to raise it as an opportunity for improvement. This is because the auditee is not violating any requirement of the standard, but rather using outdated terminology that does not reflect the current version of the standard. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the ISMS1. It is not a nonconformity, which is a failure to fulfil a requirement2. Therefore, option B is incorrect. Option A is also incorrect, because noting the issue in the audit report without raising it as an opportunity for improvement would not provide any value or feedback to the auditee. Option D is also incorrect, because bringing the matter up at the closing meeting without documenting it as an opportunity for improvement would not ensure that the auditee takes any action to address it. References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 11; 2: ISO/IEC 27000:2022, 3.28; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : ISO/IEC 27000:2022

The PDCA cycle is a four-step method for managing and improving processes. The steps are Plan, Do, Check, and Act. In the Plan phase, the objectives and scope of the process are defined, and the resources and activities are planned. In the Do phase, the process is implemented on a test basis, and the results are recorded and analyzed1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

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:

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.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-20

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

The correct option is D. There is a nonconformity (NC). The Service Manager does not comply with the software security management procedure. (Relevant to clause 8.1, control A.8.30). The IT Manager should have approved the test results according to the software security management procedure, not the Service Manager. The Service Manager’s decision to accept the failed security tests also violates the “security-by-design” and “security-by-default” principles that the organization adopted. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant. The organization and developer did perform acceptance tests, but they failed (B, C). The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service does not justify the nonconformity (A). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 8.1 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

The best practice in acceptable use of information assets is A: access to information and communication systems are provided for business purpose only. This means that the organization grants access to its information and communication systems only to authorized users who need to use them for legitimate and approved business activities. The organization does not allow or tolerate any unauthorized, inappropriate or personal use of its information and communication systems, as this could compromise information security, violate policies or laws, or cause damage or harm to the organization or its stakeholders. The other options are not best practices in acceptable use of information assets, as they could violate information security policies and procedures, as well as ethical or legal standards. Interfering with or denying service to any user other than the employee’s host (B) is a malicious act that could disrupt the availability or performance of the information systems or services of another user or organization. Playing any computer games during office hours © is a personal and unprofessional use of the information and communication systems that could distract the employee from their work duties, waste resources and bandwidth, or expose the systems to malware or other risks. Accessing phone or network transmissions, including wireless or wifi transmissions (D) is a potential breach of confidentiality or privacy that could intercept, monitor or modify the information transmitted by another user or organization without their consent or authorization. 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 possible matches of the characteristics to the descriptions are:

• Tenacious: Persistent and focused on objectives
• Ethical: Fair, truthful, sincere, honest, discreet
• Diplomatic: Tactful in dealing with individuals
• Observant: Actively observing surroundings/activities
• Perceptive: Aware of and able to understand situations
• Open to improvement: Willing to learn from situations

Actively observing surroundings/activities = Observant

Fair, truthful, sincere, honest, discreet = Ethical

Persistent and focused on objectives = Tenacious

Willing to learn from situations = Open to improvement

Tactful in dealing with individuals = Diplomatic

Aware of and able to understand situations = Perceptive

These are the auditor’s characteristics and their descriptions as defined by ISO 19011:2022, Clause 7.2.21. The auditor’s personal behaviour is essential for building trust and confidence with the auditee and for ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of the audit12. References: 1: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 7.2.2 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 3: Fundamental audit concepts and principles

The three options of the corrections and corrective actions listed that you would expect ABC to make in response to the nonconformity are:

• B. ABC cancels the service agreement with WeCare.
• E. ABC introduces background checks on information security performance for all suppliers.
• F. ABC periodically monitors compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties.

• B. This option is a possible correction and corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. A correction is the action taken to eliminate a detected nonconformity, while a corrective action is the action taken to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent its recurrence1. By cancelling the service agreement with WeCare, ABC could stop the unauthorized use of residents’ personal data and protect their privacy and rights. This could also prevent further complaints and legal issues from the residents and their family members. However, this option may also have some drawbacks, such as the loss of a service provider, the need to find an alternative solution, and the potential impact on the residents’ well-being.
• E. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By introducing background checks on information security performance for all suppliers, ABC could ensure that they select and work with reliable and trustworthy partners who respect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information they handle. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.15.1.1 (Information security policy for supplier relationships), which requires the organisation to agree and document information security requirements for mitigating the risks associated with supplier access to the organisation’s assets2.
• F. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By periodically monitoring compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties, ABC could verify that the suppliers are fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities regarding information security. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.18.1.1 (Identification of applicable legislation and contractual requirements), which requires the organisation to identify, document, and keep up to date the relevant legislative, regulatory, contractual, and other requirements to which the organisation is subject3.

References:

1: ISO 27000:2018 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Overview and vocabulary, clause 3.9 and 3.10 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.15.1.1 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.18.1.1

According to ISO/IEC 17021-1, which specifies the requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, a certification body should ensure that its auditors are competent, impartial, and independent from the auditee organization2. Therefore, if a Management System Representative of a client organization asks for a specific auditor for the certification audit, the individual(s) managing the audit programme should respond in a way that does not compromise these principles or create any conflict of interest or undue influence2. Two possible ways to respond are to state that his request will be considered but may not be taken up, as there may be other factors that affect the auditor selection process; or to advise him that the audit team selection is a decision that the audit programme manager needs to make based on the resources available, such as auditor availability, competence, location, etc2. The other options are not suitable ways to respond in this situation. For example, advising him that his request can be accepted may raise doubts about the objectivity and credibility of the auditor and the certification body; suggesting that he chooses another certification body may imply that his request is unreasonable or unethical; and suggesting asking the certification body management to permit his request may suggest that there is room for negotiation or manipulation in auditor selection2. References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 - Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems – Part 1: Requirements

The responsibilities described fit those of a "guide." A guide in an audit context is typically someone from the auditee's organization who facilitates audit activities, manages logistics, ensures compliance with health and safety policies, and may also witness the audit process, assisting the audit team.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Phishing is a type of information security incident that falls under the category of cracker/hacker attacks. Phishing is a form of fraud that uses deceptive emails or other messages to trick recipients into revealing sensitive information, such as passwords, credit card numbers, bank account details, etc. Phishing emails often impersonate legitimate organizations or individuals and create a sense of urgency or curiosity to lure the victims into clicking on malicious links, opening malicious attachments or providing personal information. Phishing is a common and serious threat to information security, as it can lead to identity theft, financial loss, data breach, malware infection or other damages. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 requires the organization to implement awareness and training programs to make users aware of the risks of social engineering attacks, such as phishing, and how to avoid them (see clause A.7.2.2). 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 Phishing?

• 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]

A third-party virtual audit is an external audit conducted by an independent certification body using remote technology such as video conferencing, screen sharing, and electronic document exchange. The purpose of a third-party virtual audit is to verify the conformity and effectiveness of the information security management system (ISMS) and to issue a certificate of compliance12

Before you start conducting the audit, you would need to inform the auditee about the following issues: 12

• You will ask those being interviewed to state their name and position beforehand, i.e., to confirm their identity and role in the ISMS. This is to ensure that you are interviewing the relevant personnel and that they are authorized to provide information and evidence for the audit.
• You will ask for a 360-degree view of the room where the audit is being carried out, i.e., to verify the physical and environmental security of the audit location. This is to ensure that there are no unauthorized persons or devices in the vicinity that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information being audited.

The other issues are not relevant or appropriate for a third-party virtual audit, because:

• You will ask to see the ID card of the person that is on the screen, i.e., to verify their identity. This is not necessary if you have already asked them to state their name and position beforehand, and if you have access to the auditee’s organizational chart or staff directory. Asking to see the ID card could also be seen as intrusive or disrespectful by the auditee.
• You will take photos of every person you interview, i.e., to document the audit process. This is not advisable as it could violate the privacy or consent of the auditee and the interviewees. Taking photos could also be seen as unprofessional or suspicious by the auditee. You should rely on the audit records and evidence provided by the auditee and the audit tool instead.
• You will not record any part of the audit, unless permitted, i.e., to respect the auditee’s preferences and rights. This is not a valid issue to inform the auditee about, as you should always record the audit for quality assurance and verification purposes. Recording the audit is also a requirement of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard and the certification body. You should inform the auditee that you will record the audit and obtain their consent before the audit begins.
• You expect the auditee to have assessed all risks associated with online activities, i.e., to ensure the security of the audit process. This is not an issue to inform the auditee about, as it is part of the auditee’s responsibility and obligation to have a risk assessment and treatment process for their ISMS. You should assess the auditee’s risk management practices and controls during the audit, not before it.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

The AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) method is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting data1. This type of control is considered preventive because it is implemented to prevent unauthorized access to confidential information by ensuring that the data is unreadable to anyone who does not have the key. References: = The explanation is based on the general understanding of encryption as a security control within the field of information security, particularly as it pertains to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard for information security management systems (ISMS), which includes encryption as a preventive control measure.

The correct sequence of the steps of the audit lifecycle according to ISO 19011:2018 is:

• Step 1: Audit initiation
• Step 2: Audit preparation
• Step 3: Conducting the audit
• Step 4: Preparing and distributing the audit report
• Step 5: Audit completion
• Step 6: Audit follow-up

This sequence reflects the logical order of the audit activities, from establishing the audit objectives, scope and criteria, to verifying the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions. However, ISO 19011:2018 also recognizes that some audit activities can be iterative or concurrent, depending on the nature and complexity of the audit. For example, audit preparation and conducting the audit can overlap when new information or changes occur during the audit. Similarly, audit follow-up can be integrated with audit completion when the corrective actions are verified shortly after the audit. Therefore, the audit lifecycle should be adapted to the specific context and needs of each audit.

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.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, audit methods can be classified into two categories: with or without interaction with individuals representing the auditee (page 12). Audit methods with interaction include reviewing checklists with auditee and conducting interviews, as they involve direct communication and feedback from the auditee. Audit methods without interaction include sampling (e.g. products), observing work performed via live video streaming, checking legal compliance with local authorities, and analysing documents provided in advance of the audit, as they do not require any dialogue or exchange with the auditee. References: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 12.

Management review is a crucial component of an ISMS that helps determine opportunities for continual improvement. Through management review, an organization assesses the performance and effectiveness of its ISMS, including reviewing opportunities for improvements and the need for changes to the ISMS, including the security policy and security objectives.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 9.3 (Management Review)

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 appropriate actions to take next are to investigate whether pest infestation is an identified risk and if so, what risk treatment is to be applied, to determine whether the high levels of rainfall have had other impacts on data centre operations, and to check with the guide that they intend to initiate the organisation’s information security incident process. These actions are relevant to the ISMS audit objectives and criteria, as they relate to the organisation’s risk assessment and treatment, security performance, and incident management processes. The other actions are either not within the scope of the ISMS audit, not required by the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, or not the responsibility of the auditor. References: PECB Candidate Handbook1, page 21-22; ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en)2, clauses 6.1, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.2.

According to the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, the following actions should be taken when a nonconformity identified for completion before the follow-up audit is still outstanding:

• A. Report the failure to address the corrective action for the outstanding nonconformity to the organisation’s top management. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to communicate the audit results and ensure that the audit objectives are met12.
• C. If the delay is justified agree on a revised date for clearing the nonconformity with the auditee/audit client. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to verify the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee and to close the nonconformity when the evidence is satisfactory12.
• E. Decide whether the delay in addressing the nonconformity is justified. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to evaluate the evidence presented by the auditee and to use professional judgement and objectivity to determine the validity of the reasons for the delay12.
• G. Note the nonconformity is still outstanding and follow audit trails to determine why. This is part of the auditor’s responsibility to collect and verify audit evidence and to identify the root causes of the nonconformity12.

References:

• 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, CQI and IRCA Certified Training, 1
• 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course, PECB, 2

This situation is unacceptable because UpNet should have requested and been granted an extension audit prior to announcing that the ISMS certification scope encompasses the whole company, including the new department. Proper procedures need to be followed to extend the certification to additional departments or processes.

According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:

• A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.
• An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.
• The organisation’s marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.

The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:

• The organisation’s malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.
• A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.
• The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.
• An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.
• The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.

References: ISO/IEC 27000:2018 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Overview and vocabulary

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.

References: = 1: ISO 27001:2022 Annex A 5.7 – Threat Intelligence - ISMS.online12: ISO 27001 Annex A 5.7 Threat Intelligence - High Table23: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause A.5.74: ISO 27002 Emphasizes Need For Threat Intelligence - Rapid745: ISO/IEC 27007:2011 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing, clause 6.3.2. : ISO 27001 Statement of Applicability [Updated 2024] - Sprinto3 : ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.1.1. : ISO 27001 Requirement 6.1.1 – Actions to address risks and opportunities | ISMS.online1

ISO/IEC 27001 does not mandate the use of a specific risk assessment methodology. Organizations are free to choose their own approach as long as it is systematic, consistent, and capable of producing valid and comparable results. This allows organizations, such as the marketing agency in the question, to adapt the methodology to suit their specific needs and business context, provided it complies with the requirements set out in the standard.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Materials; ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause 6.1.2.

A first-party audit is an internal audit conducted by the organization itself or by an external party on its behalf. The objectives of a first-party audit are to: 12

• Confirm the scope of the management system is accurate, i.e., it covers all the processes, activities, locations, and functions that are relevant to the information security objectives and requirements of the organization.
• Update the management policy, i.e., review and revise the policy statement, roles and responsibilities, and objectives and targets of the information security management system (ISMS) based on the audit findings and feedback.

The other phrases are not objectives of a first-party audit, but rather:

• Apply international standards: This is a requirement for the ISMS, not an objective of the audit. The ISMS must conform to the ISO/IEC 27001 standard and any other applicable standards or regulations12
• Prepare the audit report for the certification body: This is an activity of a third-party audit, not a first-party audit. A third-party audit is an external audit conducted by an independent certification body to verify the conformity and effectiveness of the ISMS and to issue a certificate of compliance12
• Complete the audit on time: This is a performance indicator, not an objective of the audit. The audit should be completed within the planned time frame and budget, but this is not the primary purpose of the audit12
• Apply regulatory requirements: This is also a requirement for the ISMS, not an objective of the audit. The ISMS must comply with the legal and contractual obligations of the organization regarding information security12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

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.7.2 requires an organization to implement appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas1. The organization should define and document the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, and should monitor and record the use of such access rights1. Therefore, when auditing the organization’s application of control A.7.2, an ISMS auditor should verify that these aspects are met in accordance with the audit criteria.

Based on the scenario above, the auditor should raise a nonconformity against control A.7.2, as the secure area is not adequately protected from unauthorized access. The auditor should provide the following evidence and justification for the nonconformity:

• Evidence: The auditor observed two external contractors using a swipe card and combination number provided by the centre’s reception desk to gain access to a client’s suite to carry out authorized electrical repairs. The auditor checked the door access record for the client’s suite and found that only one card was swiped. The auditor asked the receptionist and was told that it was a common problem that contractors tend to swipe one card and tailgate their way in, but they were known from the reception sign-in.
• Justification: This evidence indicates that the organization has not implemented appropriate physical entry controls to prevent unauthorized access to secure areas, as required by control A.7.2. The organization has not defined and documented the criteria for granting and revoking access rights to secure areas, as there is no verification or authorization process for providing swipe cards and combination numbers to external contractors. The organization has not monitored and recorded the use of access rights to secure areas, as there is no mechanism to ensure that each individual swipes their card and enters their combination number before entering a secure area. The organization has relied on the reception sign-in as a means of identification, which is not sufficient or reliable for ensuring information security.

The other options are not valid actions for auditing control A.7.2, as they are not related to the control or its requirements, or they are not appropriate or effective for addressing the nonconformity. For example:

• Take no action: This option is not valid because it implies that the auditor ignores or accepts the nonconformity, which is contrary to the audit principles and objectives of ISO 19011:20182, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.5.20 ‘addressing information security in supplier relationships’ as information security requirements have not been agreed upon with the supplier: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not supplier relationships. Control A.5.20 requires an organization to agree on information security requirements with suppliers that may access, process, store, communicate or provide IT infrastructure components for its information assets1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security in supplier relationships, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Raise a nonconformity against control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ as security measures for working in secure areas have not been defined: This option is not valid because it does not address the root cause of the nonconformity, which is related to physical entry controls, not working in secure areas. Control A.7.6 requires an organization to define and apply security measures for working in secure areas1. While this control may be relevant for ensuring information security when working in secure areas, it does not address the issue of unauthorized access to secure areas by external contractors.
• Determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas e.g. CCTV: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather attempts to find alternative or compensating controls that may mitigate its impact or likelihood. While additional arrangements such as CCTV may be useful for verifying individual access to secure areas, they do not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement that contractors must be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may prevent or reduce its recurrence or severity. While accompanying contractors at all times when accessing secure facilities may be a good practice for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Raise an opportunity for improvement to have a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather suggests a possible improvement action that may increase awareness or compliance with the existing controls. While having a large sign in reception reminding everyone requiring access must use their swipe card at all times may be a helpful reminder for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.
• Tell the organisation they must write to their contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately: This option is not valid because it does not address or resolve the nonconformity, but rather instructs the organization to take a corrective action that may not be effective or sufficient for ensuring information security. While writing to contractors, reminding them of the need to use access cards appropriately may be a communication measure for ensuring information security, it does not replace or substitute the requirement for appropriate physical entry controls as specified by control A.7.2.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements, ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

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.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material; ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clauses 9.2 (Internal audit) and 9.3 (Management review)

 According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 clause 6.1, the organization must establish, implement and maintain an information security risk management process that includes the following activities:

• establishing and maintaining information security risk criteria;
• ensuring that repeated information security risk assessments produce consistent, valid and comparable results;
• identifying the information security risks;
• analyzing the information security risks;
• evaluating the information security risks;
• treating the information security risks;
• accepting the information security risks and the residual information security risks;
• communicating and consulting with stakeholders throughout the process;
• monitoring and reviewing the information security risks and the risk treatment plan.

According to control A.5.29, the organization must establish, document, implement and maintain processes, procedures and controls to ensure the required level of continuity for information security during a disruptive situation. The organization must also:

• determine its requirements for information security and the continuity of information security management in adverse situations, e.g. during a crisis or disaster;
• establish, document, implement and maintain processes, procedures and controls to ensure the required level of continuity for information security during an adverse situation;
• verify the availability of information processing facilities.

Therefore, the following options will not be in your audit trail, as they are not relevant to the information security risk management process or the information security continuity process:

• E. Collect more evidence on how the organisation makes sure all staff periodically conduct a positive Covid test (Relevant to control A.7.2). This is not relevant to the information security aspects of business continuity management, as it is related to the health and safety of the staff, not the protection of information assets. Control A.7.2 is about screening of personnel prior to employment, not during employment.
• G. 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 is not relevant to the information security aspects of business continuity management, as it is related to the operational and financial aspects of the business, not the identification and treatment of information security risks. Clause 6 is about the information security risk management process, not the business risk management process.
• H. Collect more evidence on what resources the organisation provides to support the staff working from home. (Relevant to clause 7.1). This is not relevant to the information security aspects of business continuity management, as it is related to the general provision of resources for the ISMS, not the specific processes, procedures and controls to ensure the continuity of information security during a disruptive situation. Clause 7.1 is about determining and providing the resources needed for the establishment, implementation, maintenance and continual improvement of the ISMS, not the resources needed for the staff working from home.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clauses 6.1, 7.1, and Annex A control A.5.29
• [PECB Candidate Handbook ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor], pages 14-15, 17, 22-23
• ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Control 5.29 - What’s New?
• ISO 22301 Business Continuity Management System

The main purpose of a Stage 1 audit is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation’s ISMS documentation, and to assess whether the organisation is prepared for the Stage 2 audit, where the implementation and operation of the ISMS will be verified. The Stage 1 audit also involves verifying the scope, objectives, and context of the ISMS, as well as identifying any areas of concern or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems Section 7.3.1

Auditors have the authority to object or even refuse an audit mandate if they believe that the audit duration proposed by the auditee is not sufficient to thoroughly assess the ISMS. It is crucial for the audit to be comprehensive enough to cover all necessary aspects of the system, ensuring its effectiveness and compliance.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Materiality should be considered during the initial contact to obtain reasonable assurance that the audit can be successfully completed. Determining materiality helps establish the threshold for the significance of audit findings, ensuring that the audit focuses on substantial issues that could impact the audit conclusions.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

The words that best complete the sentence are assess and recommendation. The sentence would read as follows:

“An audit plan is a statement of the intent of the audit team to assess all areas of the company with a view to determining a recommendation for certification approval.”

Explanation: According to the web search results from my predefined tool, a third-party audit plan is a document that describes the scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology of an external audit conducted by an independent certification body to verify the conformity of an organization’s ISMS with the ISO 27001 standard12. The audit plan also includes the audit schedule, the audit team, the audit locations, and the audit deliverables23. One of the main deliverables of a third-party audit is the audit report, which summarizes the audit findings, the audit conclusions, and the audit recommendation34. The audit recommendation is the opinion of the audit team on whether the organization’s ISMS meets the certification requirements and whether the certification should be granted, maintained, suspended, or withdrawn45.

Therefore, the purpose of the audit plan is to state the intention of the audit team to assess all areas of the company, meaning to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS, and to determine a recommendation for certification approval, meaning to provide a judgment on the certification status of the ISMS. The other words in the options, such as verdict, permit, report, inspect, and question, do not accurately reflect the meaning of the audit plan. A verdict is a formal decision made by a judge or a jury, not by an audit team. A permit is a legal authorization to do something, not a certification of conformity. A report is a document that presents the audit results, not the audit intention. An inspection is a visual examination of something, not a comprehensive assessment of an ISMS. A question is a request for information, not a determination of a recommendation.