Selected CRISC Isaca Certification Questions Answers

Conducting User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is the best way for an organization to avoid situations where users voice concerns about missing functionality after a system implementation.

User Acceptance Testing (UAT):

Definition:UAT involves testing the system with actual users to ensure it meets their needs and requirements. It verifies that the system performs in real-world scenarios as expected by the users.

Involvement of Users:UAT includes the end-users in the testing process, ensuring that their feedback is incorporated and that the system functionalities align with their expectations.

Benefits:

Identifying Gaps:UAT helps in identifying gaps between the delivered system and user expectations. This early detection allows for adjustments before the system goes live.

Improved Satisfaction:By involving users in the testing process, the likelihood of the system meeting their needs increases, leading to higher user satisfaction and reduced post-implementation issues.

The observation from a third-party service provider review that would be of greatest concern to a risk practitioner is that the service level agreements (SLAs) have not been met over the last quarter, as it indicates a significant performance issue or breach that may affect the quality, functionality, or security of the outsourced services, and may require a remediation or escalation action. The other options are not the greatest concerns, as they may not indicate a performance issue or breach, but rather a contractual, personnel, or financial issue, respectively, that may not affect the outsourced services directly or significantly. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 111.

 A risk practitioner’s best course of action when a business manager wants to leverage an existing approved vendor solution from another area within the organization is to assess the risk associated with the new use case. This is because the new use case may introduce different or additional risks that were not considered or addressed in the original approval. For example, the new use case may involve different data types, volumes, or sensitivities; different business processes, functions, or objectives; different regulatory or contractual requirements; or different technical or operational dependencies. Therefore, the risk practitioner should perform a vendor risk assessment (VRA) to identify, evaluate, and mitigate the potential risks of the new use case and ensure that the vendor solution meets the organization’s riskappetite and tolerance12. Recommending allowing the new usage based on prior approval is not the best course of action, as it may overlook or underestimate the risks of the new use case and expose the organization to unacceptable levels of risk. Requesting a new third-party review is not the best course of action,as it may be unnecessary or redundant if the vendor solution has already been reviewed and approved for another use case within the organization. Requesting revalidation of the original use case is not the best course of action, as it may not address the specific risks of the new use case and may also delay or disrupt the existing use case. References = Risk and Information SystemsControl Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Risk Monitoring, pp. 189-191.