Free ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Braindumps (page: 19)

Page 18 of 41

Scenario: Tessa, 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 organizations 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 organizations 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 scenario, Tessa is advised to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit. Is this recommended?

  1. Yes, to avoid including information that may compromise the audits confidentiality
  2. Yes, to simplify the report for a better understanding
  3. Yes, to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered and addressed

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

It is recommended to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report to keep the report concise and focused on the critical findings. This approach helps to simplify the report, making it easier for the auditee and other stakeholders to understand the key points. Including only the most relevant and critical findings ensures that the report remains clear and digestible, while also helping to highlight the most significant issues that need to be addressed. Simplifying the report also avoids overwhelming the auditee with excessive detail that may not directly contribute to the certification decision.



Scenario: Tessa, 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 organizations 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 organizations 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.

According to scenario, was the closing meeting conducted accordingly?

  1. Yes, the closing meeting is conducted on the last day of the audit
  2. No, it should be conducted after the audit conclusions have been drafted
  3. No, it should be conducted after several weeks of completing the on-site audit

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

In this scenario, the closing meeting was conducted on the last day of the audit, which is the appropriate timing for such a meeting. During the closing meeting, the audit team presents their findings, including any identified nonconformities and other key observations. This allows the auditee, in this case, Clastus, to understand the audit results and ask any clarifying questions before the final audit report is prepared. It is standard practice to conduct the closing meeting at the end of the audit to summarize the findings and provide the auditee with an opportunity to discuss them.



Who is primarily responsible for the preparation and content of the audit report?

  1. Audit team leader
  2. Audit team member
  3. Certification body

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The audit team leader is primarily responsible for the preparation and content of the audit report. The audit team leader coordinates the audit process, ensures that the team follows the audit plan, and consolidates the findings into a final audit report. The team leader also ensures that the report accurately reflects the audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations. While the audit team members may contribute their findings and observations, the responsibility for the final report rests with the audit team leader.



After analyzing the audit conclusions, Company X accepted the risk related to one of the detected nonconformities. They claimed no corrective action was necessary; however, their decision was not documented is this acceptable?

  1. Yes, the auditee's management can decide to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions, and documenting such a decision is not necessary
  2. No. the decision of the auditee to accept the risk instead of implementing corrective actions should be justified and documented
  3. No, the auditee must implement corrective actions for all the observations documented during the audit

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

When an auditee decides to accept the risk associated with a nonconformity rather than implementing corrective actions, this decision must be justified and documented. This documentation ensures transparency and provides evidence that the decision was made after considering the potential impact of the risk. It also helps to ensure that the decision is aligned with the organization’s risk management framework and compliance requirements. Simply accepting the risk without documentation could lead to issues with accountability and compliance in the future.






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

ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Discussions & Posts