Isaca Certification CRISC Updated Exam

The primary purpose of using a framework for risk analysis is to improve consistency. A framework for risk analysis is a set of principles, standards, methods, and tools that guide and govern the risk analysis process. Risk analysis is the process of estimating the impact and likelihood of the risk events, and determining the level and nature of the risk exposure. A framework for risk analysis helps to improve consistency, which is the degree of uniformity and agreement among the risk analysis results and practices. Improving consistency helps to ensure that the risk analysis is performed in a systematic and structured way, and that the risk analysis results are comparable and reliable. Improving consistency also helps to reduce the bias, uncertainty, and variability in the risk analysis process, and to enhance the quality and accuracy of the risk analysis results. Improving accountability, helping define risk tolerance, and helping develop risk scenarios are not the primary purposes of using a framework for risk analysis, as they are either the benefits or the objectives of the risk analysis process, and they do not addressthe primary need of improving the quality and reliability of the risk analysis results. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 49.

According to the GDPR, personal data shall be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes1. This means that a business unit can only use personal information for a different purpose if it has obtained the consent of the data subject, or if it has a clear legal basis or obligation to do so2. Therefore, informed consent should be the first consideration when a business unit wants to use personal information for a purpose other than for which it was originally collected.

References = GDPR Article 5 (1) (b) and Article 6 (4)1, ICO Principle (b): Purpose limitation2

The likelihood rating in the risk register is a measure of how probable it is that a risk event will occur, given the current conditions and controls. The risk practitioner should change the likelihood rating if there is a significant change in the effectiveness of the controls that are implemented to prevent or reduce the risk. For example, if a control becomes obsolete, ineffective, or bypassed, the likelihood rating should increase, as the risk event becomes more likely to happen. Conversely, if a control becomes more efficient, reliable, or robust, the likelihood rating should decrease, as the risk event becomes less likely to happen. The other options are not likely to cause a change in the likelihood rating, as they are not directly related to the probability of the risk event. Risk appetite is the amount of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Control cost is the amount of resources that are required to implement and maintain a control. Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation that an organization is willing to allow for a risk to deviate from its desired level or expected outcome. These factors may influence the risk response or the risk acceptance, but not the likelihood rating. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.4: Risk Register, p. 25-26.

The best tool for communicating strategic risk priorities is a heat map. A heat map is a graphical representation of the risk profile of an enterprise, showing the likelihood and impact of various risks on a matrix. A heat map can help to highlight the most significant risks that require attention, as well as the risk appetite and tolerance levels of the enterprise. A heat map can also facilitate the comparison of risks across different business units, processes, or objectives, and enable the communication of risk information to stakeholders in a clear and concise manner. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1, page 240.