At ValidExamDumps, we consistently monitor updates to the PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor exam questions by PECB. Whenever our team identifies changes in the exam questions,exam objectives, exam focus areas or in exam requirements, We immediately update our exam questions for both PDF and online practice exams. This commitment ensures our customers always have access to the most current and accurate questions. By preparing with these actual questions, our customers can successfully pass the PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam on their first attempt without needing additional materials or study guides.
Other certification materials providers often include outdated or removed questions by PECB in their PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor exam. These outdated questions lead to customers failing their PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam. In contrast, we ensure our questions bank includes only precise and up-to-date questions, guaranteeing their presence in your actual exam. Our main priority is your success in the PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor exam, not profiting from selling obsolete exam questions in PDF or Online Practice Test.
You are an experienced ISMS auditor, currently providing support to an ISMS auditor in training who is carrying out her first initial certification audit. She asks you what she should be verifying when auditing an organisation's Information Security objectives. You ask her what she has included in her audit checklist and she provides the following replies.
Which three of these responses would you cause you concern in relation to conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022?
Three responses from the ISMS auditor in training that would cause concern in relation to conformity with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are:
I am going to check that top management have determined the Information Security objectives for the current year. If not, I will check that this task has been programmed to be completed: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives at relevant functions and levels, not just at the top management level. It also implies that the auditor in training is willing to accept a delay or postponement in determining the information security objectives, which may affect the ISMS performance and effectiveness.
I am going to check that the Information Security objectives are written down on paper so that everyone is clear on what needs to be achieved, how it will be achieved, and by when it will be achieved: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives that are measurable (if practicable) or capable of being evaluated, not just written down on paper. It also implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the flexibility and suitability of different media or formats for documenting and communicating information security objectives, such as electronic or digital records, posters, newsletters, etc.
I am going to check that a completion date has been set for each objective and that there are no objectives with missing 'achieve by' dates: This response would cause concern because it implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the requirement to establish information security objectives that are monitored, not just completed by a certain date. It also implies that the auditor in training is not aware of the possibility and necessity of updating information security objectives as appropriate, such as when changes occur in the internal or external context of the organization, or when new risks or opportunities arise.
Scenario 7: Lawsy is a leading law firm with offices in New Jersey and New York City. It has over 50 attorneys offering sophisticated legal services to clients in business and commercial law, intellectual property, banking, and financial services. They believe they have a comfortable position in the market thanks to their commitment to implement information security best practices and remain up to date with technological developments.
Lawsy has implemented, evaluated, and conducted internal audits for an ISMS rigorously for two years now. Now, they have applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification to ISMA, a well-known and trusted certification body.
During stage 1 audit, the audit team reviewed all the ISMS documents created during the implementation. They also reviewed and evaluated the records from management reviews and internal audits.
Lawsy submitted records of evidence that corrective actions on nonconformities were performed when necessary, so the audit team interviewed the internal auditor. The interview validated the adequacy and frequency of the internal audits by providing detailed insight into the internal audit plan and procedures.
The audit team continued with the verification of strategic documents, including the information security policy and risk evaluation criteri
a. During the information security policy review, the team noticed inconsistencies between the documented information describing governance framework (i.e., the information security policy) and the procedures.
Although the employees were allowed to take the laptops outside the workplace, Lawsy did not have procedures in place regarding the use of laptops in such cases. The policy only provided general information about the use of laptops. The company relied on employees' common knowledge to protect the confidentiality and integrity of information stored in the laptops. This issue was documented in the stage 1 audit report.
Upon completing stage 1 audit, the audit team leader prepared the audit plan, which addressed the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and procedures.
During stage 2 audit, the audit team interviewed the information security manager, who drafted the information security policy. He justified the Issue identified in stage 1 by stating that Lawsy conducts mandatory information security training and awareness sessions every three months.
Following the interview, the audit team examined 15 employee training records (out of 50) and concluded that Lawsy meets requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 related to training and awareness. To support this conclusion, they photocopied the examined employee training records.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Based on scenario 7, what should Lawsy do prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit?
Prior to the initiation of stage 2 audit, Lawsy should review and confirm the audit plan with the certification body. This ensures that both parties agree on the objectives, scope, and procedures for the stage 2 audit, thus aligning expectations and facilitating a smoother audit process.
As an auditor, you have noticed that ABC Inc. has established a procedure to manage the removable storage medi
a. The procedure is based on the classification scheme adopted by ABC Inc. Thus, if the information stored is classified as "confidential," the procedure applies. On the other hand, the information that is classified as "public," does not have confidentiality requirements: thus, only a procedure for ensuring its integrity and availability applies. What type of audit finding is this?
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.
Scenario 5: Cobt. an insurance company in London, offers various commercial, industrial, and life insurance solutions. In recent years, the number of Cobt's clients has increased enormously. Having a huge amount of data to process, the company decided that certifying against ISO/IEC 27001 would bring many benefits to securing information and show its commitment to continual improvement. While the company was well-versed in conducting regular risk assessments, implementing an ISMS brought major changes to its daily operations. During the risk assessment process, a risk was identified where significant defects occurred without being detected or prevented by the organizations internal control mechanisms.
The company followed a methodology to implement the ISMS and had an operational ISMS in place after only a few months After successfully implementing the ISMS, Cobt applied for ISO/IEC 27001 certification Sarah, an experienced auditor, was assigned to the audit Upon thoroughly analyzing the audit offer, Sarah accepted her responsibilities as an audit team leader and immediately started to obtain general information about Cobt She established the audit criteria and objective, planned the audit, and assigned the audit team members' responsibilities.
Sarah acknowledged that although Cobt has expanded significantly by offering diverse commercial and insurance solutions, it still relies on some manual processes Therefore, her initial focus was to gather information on how the company manages its information security risks Sarah contacted Cobt's representatives to request access to information related to risk management for the off-site review, as initially agreed upon for part of the audit However, Cobt later refused, claiming that such information is too sensitive to be accessed outside of the company This refusal raised concerns about the audit's feasibility, particularly regarding the availability and cooperation of the auditee and access to evidence Moreover, Cobt raised concerns about the audit schedule, stating that it does not properly reflect the recent changes the company made It pointed out that the actions to be performed during the audit apply only to the initial scope and do not encompass the latest changes made in the audit scope
Sarah also evaluated the materiality of the situation, considering the significance of the information denied for the audit objectives. In this case, the refusal by Cobt raised questions about the completeness of the audit and its ability to provide reasonable assurance. Following these situations, Sarah decided to withdraw from the audit before a certification agreement was signed and communicated her decision to Cobt and the certification body. This decision was made to ensure adherence to audit principles and maintain transparency, highlighting her commitment to consistently upholding these principles.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
What type of risk did Cobt identify during the last risk assessment?
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth
Detection Risk (Correct Answer) -- Detection risk occurs when control mechanisms fail to identify significant defects or errors. Cobt identified that major defects were not detected or prevented by internal controls, making detection risk the correct answer.
Inherent Risk refers to the likelihood of a security event occurring without considering any controls. The scenario mentions control failures, not natural risks, so this is incorrect.
Control Risk is the risk of controls failing to prevent a risk. However, the scenario specifically mentions that the defects were not detected, making detection risk the more precise answer.
Relevant Standard Reference:
Scenario 8: Tess
a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.
Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.
After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible
To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.
Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
The audit team did not accept Clastus's additional information because they had already made the certification recommendation. Is this acceptable?
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth
B . Correct Answer:
ISO 19011:2018 (Guidelines for Auditing) requires auditors to consider all relevant evidence before making a final recommendation.
Clastus has the right to present additional evidence if they disagree with findings.
A . Incorrect:
Certification recommendations should remain open to valid new evidence until officially finalized.
C . Incorrect:
Auditors must consider revisions if they provide relevant clarification or evidence.
Relevant Standard Reference:
ISO 19011:2018 Clause 6.6.3 (Handling Disputes and Additional Evidence in Audits)
