Free ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Braindumps (page: 12)

Page 11 of 41

Scenario: Branding is a marketing company that works with some of the most famous companies in the US. To reduce internal costs, Branding has outsourced the software development and IT helpdesk operations to Techvology for over two years. Techvology, equipped with the necessary expertise, manages Branding's software, network, and hardware needs. Branding has implemented an information security management system (ISMS) and is certified against ISO/IEC 27001, demonstrating its commitment to maintaining high standards of information security. It actively conducts audits on Techvology to ensure that the security of its outsourced operations complies with ISO/IEC 27001 certification requirements.

During the last audit, Branding's audit team defined the processes to be audited and the audit schedule. They adopted an evidence-based approach, particularly in light of two information security incidents reported by Techvology in the past year. The focus was on evaluating how these incidents were addressed and ensuring compliance with the terms of the outsourcing agreement.

The audit began with a comprehensive review of Techvology's methods for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, assessing whether the services provided met Branding's expectations and agreed-upon standards. The auditors also verified whether Techvology complied with the contractual requirements established between the two entities. This involved thoroughly examining the terms and conditions in the outsourcing agreement to guarantee that all aspects, including information security measures, are being adhered to.

Furthermore, the audit included a critical evaluation of the governance processes Techvology uses to manage its outsourced operations and other organizations. This step is crucial for Branding to verify that proper controls and oversight mechanisms are in place to mitigate potential risks associated with the outsourcing arrangement.

The auditors conducted interviews with various levels of Techvology's personnel and analyzed the incident resolution records. In addition, Techvology provided the records that served as evidence that they conducted awareness sessions for the staff regarding incident management. Based on the information gathered, they predicted that both information security incidents were caused by incompetent personnel. Therefore, auditors requested to see the personnel files of the employees involved in the incidents to review evidence of their competence, such as relevant experience, certificates, and records of attended trainings.

Branding's auditors performed a critical evaluation of the validity of the evidence obtained and remained alert for evidence that could contradict or question the reliability of the documented information received. During the audit at Techvology, the auditors upheld this approach by critically assessing the incident resolution records and conducting thorough interviews with employees at different levels and functions. They did not merely take the word of Techvology's representatives for facts; instead, they sought concrete evidence to support the representatives' claims about the incident management processes.

Based on scenario, what type of audit did Branding conduct?

  1. First party audit
  2. Second party audit
  3. Third party audit

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

A second-party audit refers to an audit conducted by a customer (in this case, Branding) on a supplier or service provider (in this case, Techvology). Branding, as the customer, is auditing Techvology to ensure that the outsourced operations comply with the information security standards required by their outsourcing agreement and ISO/IEC 27001 certification. This is different from a first-party audit (internal audit) or a third-party audit (conducted by an independent external auditor for certification purposes).



Scenario: Branding is a marketing company that works with some of the most famous companies in the US. To reduce internal costs, Branding has outsourced the software development and IT helpdesk operations to Techvology for over two years. Techvology, equipped with the necessary expertise, manages Branding's software, network, and hardware needs. Branding has implemented an information security management system (ISMS) and is certified against ISO/IEC 27001, demonstrating its commitment to maintaining high standards of information security. It actively conducts audits on Techvology to ensure that the security of its outsourced operations complies with ISO/IEC 27001 certification requirements.

During the last audit, Branding's audit team defined the processes to be audited and the audit schedule. They adopted an evidence-based approach, particularly in light of two information security incidents reported by Techvology in the past year. The focus was on evaluating how these incidents were addressed and ensuring compliance with the terms of the outsourcing agreement.

The audit began with a comprehensive review of Techvology's methods for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, assessing whether the services provided met Branding's expectations and agreed-upon standards. The auditors also verified whether Techvology complied with the contractual requirements established between the two entities. This involved thoroughly examining the terms and conditions in the outsourcing agreement to guarantee that all aspects, including information security measures, are being adhered to.

Furthermore, the audit included a critical evaluation of the governance processes Techvology uses to manage its outsourced operations and other organizations. This step is crucial for Branding to verify that proper controls and oversight mechanisms are in place to mitigate potential risks associated with the outsourcing arrangement.

The auditors conducted interviews with various levels of Techvology's personnel and analyzed the incident resolution records. In addition, Techvology provided the records that served as evidence that they conducted awareness sessions for the staff regarding incident management. Based on the information gathered, they predicted that both information security incidents were caused by incompetent personnel. Therefore, auditors requested to see the personnel files of the employees involved in the incidents to review evidence of their competence, such as relevant experience, certificates, and records of attended trainings.

Branding's auditors performed a critical evaluation of the validity of the evidence obtained and remained alert for evidence that could contradict or question the reliability of the documented information received. During the audit at Techvology, the auditors upheld this approach by critically assessing the incident resolution records and conducting thorough interviews with employees at different levels and functions. They did not merely take the word of Techvology's representatives for facts; instead, they sought concrete evidence to support the representatives' claims about the incident management processes.

Which auditing principle is explained in the last paragraph of scenario?

  1. Risk-based approach
  2. Fair presentation
  3. Professional skepticism

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The last paragraph of the scenario describes how the auditors critically evaluated the evidence and did not simply take the word of Techvology's representatives for granted. They remained alert for evidence that could contradict or question the reliability of the documented information, which is an example of professional skepticism. This auditing principle emphasizes that auditors should maintain a questioning mindset, being cautious and not accepting information without verifying its accuracy and validity.



Scenario: Branding is a marketing company that works with some of the most famous companies in the US. To reduce internal costs, Branding has outsourced the software development and IT helpdesk operations to Techvology for over two years. Techvology, equipped with the necessary expertise, manages Branding's software, network, and hardware needs. Branding has implemented an information security management system (ISMS) and is certified against ISO/IEC 27001, demonstrating its commitment to maintaining high standards of information security. It actively conducts audits on Techvology to ensure that the security of its outsourced operations complies with ISO/IEC 27001 certification requirements.

During the last audit, Branding's audit team defined the processes to be audited and the audit schedule. They adopted an evidence-based approach, particularly in light of two information security incidents reported by Techvology in the past year. The focus was on evaluating how these incidents were addressed and ensuring compliance with the terms of the outsourcing agreement.

The audit began with a comprehensive review of Techvology's methods for monitoring the quality of outsourced operations, assessing whether the services provided met Branding's expectations and agreed-upon standards. The auditors also verified whether Techvology complied with the contractual requirements established between the two entities. This involved thoroughly examining the terms and conditions in the outsourcing agreement to guarantee that all aspects, including information security measures, are being adhered to.

Furthermore, the audit included a critical evaluation of the governance processes Techvology uses to manage its outsourced operations and other organizations. This step is crucial for Branding to verify that proper controls and oversight mechanisms are in place to mitigate potential risks associated with the outsourcing arrangement.

The auditors conducted interviews with various levels of Techvology's personnel and analyzed the incident resolution records. In addition, Techvology provided the records that served as evidence that they conducted awareness sessions for the staff regarding incident management. Based on the information gathered, they predicted that both information security incidents were caused by incompetent personnel. Therefore, auditors requested to see the personnel files of the employees involved in the incidents to review evidence of their competence, such as relevant experience, certificates, and records of attended trainings.

Branding's auditors performed a critical evaluation of the validity of the evidence obtained and remained alert for evidence that could contradict or question the reliability of the documented information received. During the audit at Techvology, the auditors upheld this approach by critically assessing the incident resolution records and conducting thorough interviews with employees at different levels and functions. They did not merely take the word of Techvology's representatives for facts; instead, they sought concrete evidence to support the representatives' claims about the incident management processes.

According to ISO/IEC 27001 requirements, is Branding required to control the services offered by Techvology continually? Refer to scenario.

  1. Yes, Branding is responsible for controlling and monitoring the quality of Techvology's services
  2. Yes, only if this is a requirement specified in the contractual agreement between the two companies
  3. No, Branding is not responsible for controlling the services offered by Techvology, but is responsible for monitoring them

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

According to ISO/IEC 27001, while Branding is not directly responsible for controlling the services offered by Techvology, it is responsible for monitoring those services to ensure that they meet the agreed-upon standards and that the information security requirements are being upheld. The audit described in the scenario demonstrates Branding's responsibility for monitoring the quality and security of the outsourced services provided by Techvology, including verifying compliance with contractual and ISMS requirements.



Prior to initiating the audit activities, the auditors considered the auditee's context, critical processes, and expectations. Which auditing principle has been applied?

  1. Due professional care
  2. Professional skepticism
  3. Integrity

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The principle of due professional care involves auditors considering the auditee's context, critical processes, and expectations before initiating the audit. This ensures that the audit is appropriately planned, taking into account relevant factors that might impact the audit's effectiveness and scope. It requires auditors to exercise appropriate judgment, conduct a thorough analysis, and be mindful of the situation surrounding the audit. This is different from professional skepticism (which is about maintaining a questioning mindset) and integrity (which refers to being honest and impartial).






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

ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Discussions & Posts