Free ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Braindumps

An organization is evaluating the materiality of different processes within its ISMS. It is assessing the direct expenses involved with personnel, third party services, and general fees. Which factor of materiality is the company primarily considering?

  1. Cost of operations
  2. Cost of the process
  3. Potential cost of errors or nonconformities

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

When the organization is evaluating the direct expenses involved with personnel, third-party services, and general fees, it is primarily considering the cost of the process. This factor reflects the financial resources required to implement and maintain the ISMS processes, including the associated personnel and services. Assessing this helps the organization understand the financial impact of its security activities.



Scenario: Rebuildy is a construction company located in Bangkok, Thailand, that specializes in designing, building, and maintaining residential buildings. To ensure the security of sensitive project data and client information, Rebuildy decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001. This included a comprehensive understanding of information security risks, a defined continual improvement approach, and robust business solutions.

The ISMS implementation outcomes are presented below:

-Information security is achieved by applying a set of security controls and establishing policies, processes, and procedures.
-Security controls are implemented based on risk assessment and aim to eliminate or reduce risks to an acceptable level.
-All processes ensure the continual improvement of the ISMS based on the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) model.
-The information security policy is part of a security manual drafted based on best security practices. Therefore, it is not a stand-alone document.
-Information security roles and responsibilities have been clearly stated in every employee's job description.
-Management reviews of the ISMS are conducted at planned intervals.

Rebuildy applied for certification after two midterm management reviews and one annual internal audit. Before the certification audit, one of Rebuildy's former employees approached one of the audit team members to tell them that Rebuildy has several security problems that the company is trying to conceal. The former employee presented the documented evidence to the audit team member. Electra, a key client of Rebuildy, also submitted evidence on the same issues, and the auditor determined to retain this evidence instead of the former employee's. The audit team member remained in contact with Electra until the audit was completed, discussing the nonconformities found during the audit. Electra provided additional evidence to support these findings.

At the beginning of the audit, the audit team interviewed the company's top management. They discussed, among other things, the top management's commitment to the ISMS implementation. The evidence obtained from these discussions was documented in written confirmation, which was used to determine Rebuildy's conformity to several clauses of ISO/IEC 27001.

The documented evidence obtained from Electra was attached to the audit report, along with the nonconformities report. Among others, the following nonconformities were detected:

-An instance of improper user access control settings was detected within the company's financial reporting system.
-A stand-alone information security policy has not been established. Instead, the company uses a security manual drafted based on best security practices.

After receiving these documents from the audit team, the team leader met Rebuildy's top management to present the audit findings. The audit team reported the findings related to the financial reporting system and the lack of a stand-alone information security policy. The top management expressed dissatisfaction with the findings and suggested that the audit team leader's conduct was unprofessional, implying they might request a replacement. Under pressure, the audit team leader decided to cooperate with top management to downplay the significance of the detected nonconformities. Consequently, the audit team leader adjusted the report to present a more favorable view, thus misrepresenting the true extent of Rebuildy's compliance issues.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Is it acceptable for the auditor to prioritize keeping the evidence provided by Electra over the evidence provided by the former employee?

  1. No, because evidence from a former employee is always more reliable than that from a client
  2. No, both sources of evidence should be retained and evaluated equally
  3. Yes, because evidence from a client is considered more reliable due to their independent status

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

In an audit, all evidence should be retained and evaluated objectively, regardless of the source. Both the evidence provided by the former employee and the evidence provided by Electra should be considered equally in the audit process. Ignoring or prioritizing one over the other can lead to bias and a lack of thoroughness in the audit. It is essential to assess all evidence in a fair and impartial manner to accurately evaluate the organization’s compliance with ISO/IEC 27001.



Scenario: Rebuildy is a construction company located in Bangkok, Thailand, that specializes in designing, building, and maintaining residential buildings. To ensure the security of sensitive project data and client information, Rebuildy decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001. This included a comprehensive understanding of information security risks, a defined continual improvement approach, and robust business solutions.

The ISMS implementation outcomes are presented below:

-Information security is achieved by applying a set of security controls and establishing policies, processes, and procedures.
-Security controls are implemented based on risk assessment and aim to eliminate or reduce risks to an acceptable level.
-All processes ensure the continual improvement of the ISMS based on the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) model.
-The information security policy is part of a security manual drafted based on best security practices. Therefore, it is not a stand-alone document.
-Information security roles and responsibilities have been clearly stated in every employee's job description.
-Management reviews of the ISMS are conducted at planned intervals.

Rebuildy applied for certification after two midterm management reviews and one annual internal audit. Before the certification audit, one of Rebuildy's former employees approached one of the audit team members to tell them that Rebuildy has several security problems that the company is trying to conceal. The former employee presented the documented evidence to the audit team member. Electra, a key client of Rebuildy, also submitted evidence on the same issues, and the auditor determined to retain this evidence instead of the former employee's. The audit team member remained in contact with Electra until the audit was completed, discussing the nonconformities found during the audit. Electra provided additional evidence to support these findings.

At the beginning of the audit, the audit team interviewed the company's top management. They discussed, among other things, the top management's commitment to the ISMS implementation. The evidence obtained from these discussions was documented in written confirmation, which was used to determine Rebuildy's conformity to several clauses of ISO/IEC 27001.

The documented evidence obtained from Electra was attached to the audit report, along with the nonconformities report. Among others, the following nonconformities were detected:

-An instance of improper user access control settings was detected within the company's financial reporting system.
-A stand-alone information security policy has not been established. Instead, the company uses a security manual drafted based on best security practices.

After receiving these documents from the audit team, the team leader met Rebuildy's top management to present the audit findings. The audit team reported the findings related to the financial reporting system and the lack of a stand-alone information security policy. The top management expressed dissatisfaction with the findings and suggested that the audit team leader's conduct was unprofessional, implying they might request a replacement. Under pressure, the audit team leader decided to cooperate with top management to downplay the significance of the detected nonconformities. Consequently, the audit team leader adjusted the report to present a more favorable view, thus misrepresenting the true extent of Rebuildy's compliance issues.

Based on the last paragraph of scenario, what did the audit team leader commit?

  1. Ordinary negligence
  2. Gross negligence
  3. Fraud

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Gross negligence refers to a severe degree of negligence where the person fails to exercise even the slightest degree of care, often leading to a significant misjudgment or failure in fulfilling their duties. In this case, the audit team leader knowingly adjusted the audit report to present a more favorable view of the company’s compliance, despite having found nonconformities. This behavior undermines the integrity of the audit process and misrepresents the organization's true compliance status, which is a form of gross negligence. The auditor’s actions were not just an oversight but a clear and substantial failure to fulfill professional obligations.



Scenario: Rebuildy is a construction company located in Bangkok, Thailand, that specializes in designing, building, and maintaining residential buildings. To ensure the security of sensitive project data and client information, Rebuildy decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001. This included a comprehensive understanding of information security risks, a defined continual improvement approach, and robust business solutions.

The ISMS implementation outcomes are presented below:

-Information security is achieved by applying a set of security controls and establishing policies, processes, and procedures.
-Security controls are implemented based on risk assessment and aim to eliminate or reduce risks to an acceptable level.
-All processes ensure the continual improvement of the ISMS based on the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) model.
-The information security policy is part of a security manual drafted based on best security practices. Therefore, it is not a stand-alone document.
-Information security roles and responsibilities have been clearly stated in every employee's job description.
-Management reviews of the ISMS are conducted at planned intervals.

Rebuildy applied for certification after two midterm management reviews and one annual internal audit. Before the certification audit, one of Rebuildy's former employees approached one of the audit team members to tell them that Rebuildy has several security problems that the company is trying to conceal. The former employee presented the documented evidence to the audit team member. Electra, a key client of Rebuildy, also submitted evidence on the same issues, and the auditor determined to retain this evidence instead of the former employee's. The audit team member remained in contact with Electra until the audit was completed, discussing the nonconformities found during the audit. Electra provided additional evidence to support these findings.

At the beginning of the audit, the audit team interviewed the company's top management. They discussed, among other things, the top management's commitment to the ISMS implementation. The evidence obtained from these discussions was documented in written confirmation, which was used to determine Rebuildy's conformity to several clauses of ISO/IEC 27001.

The documented evidence obtained from Electra was attached to the audit report, along with the nonconformities report. Among others, the following nonconformities were detected:

-An instance of improper user access control settings was detected within the company's financial reporting system.
-A stand-alone information security policy has not been established. Instead, the company uses a security manual drafted based on best security practices.

After receiving these documents from the audit team, the team leader met Rebuildy's top management to present the audit findings. The audit team reported the findings related to the financial reporting system and the lack of a stand-alone information security policy. The top management expressed dissatisfaction with the findings and suggested that the audit team leader's conduct was unprofessional, implying they might request a replacement. Under pressure, the audit team leader decided to cooperate with top management to downplay the significance of the detected nonconformities. Consequently, the audit team leader adjusted the report to present a more favorable view, thus misrepresenting the true extent of Rebuildy's compliance issues.

Did the audit team adhere to audit best practices regarding the situation with the financial reporting system? Refer to scenario.

  1. Yes, as it is beyond the scope of the audit
  2. No. the audit team should have contacted the certification body and reported the situation
  3. No, the audit team should have withdrawn from the audit due to the illegal nature of the act

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The audit team is responsible for ensuring that the audit is conducted impartially, transparently, and according to the audit standards. In the situation described, the audit team leader adjusted the report to present a more favorable view under pressure from top management, which misrepresented the true extent of Rebuildy’s compliance issues. This violates the principles of objectivity and integrity that are central to auditing best practices. The appropriate action would have been for the audit team to contact the certification body and report the situation, ensuring that the nonconformities were fully documented and properly addressed, maintaining the integrity of the audit process.






Post your Comments and Discuss EXIN ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor exam with other Community members:

ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Discussions & Posts