CompTIA
Checkpoint
ISC
HP
Dell
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL®
Juniper
PMI
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
Google
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
Certiport
ISC2
All Vendors
  2. Home
  3. Exams
  4. EXIN
  5. ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor

Free ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Braindumps (page: 20)

Page 19 of 41
PDF with 160 Questions

Scenario: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

Techmanic has been ISO/IEC 27001 certified for a year and regards this certification with pride. During the certification audit, the auditor found some inconsistencies in its ISMS implementation. Since the observed situations did not affect the capability of its ISMS to achieve the intended results, Techmanic was certified after auditors followed up on the root cause analysis and corrective actions remotely. During that year, the company added hosting to its list of services and requested to expand its certification scope to include that area. The auditor in charge approved the request and notified Techmanic that the extension audit would be conducted during the surveillance audit.

Techmanic underwent a surveillance audit to verify its ISMS's continued effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 27001. The surveillance audit aimed to ensure that Techmanic's security practices, including the recent addition of hosting services, aligned seamlessly with the rigorous requirements of the certification.

The auditor strategically utilized the findings from previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity with the purpose of replacing the need for additional recertification audits, specifically in the IT consultancy sector. Recognizing the value of continual improvement and learning from past assessments, Techmanic implemented a practice of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports. This proactive approach not only facilitated identifying and resolving potential nonconformities but also aimed to streamline the recertification process in the IT consultancy sector.

During the surveillance audit, several nonconformities were found. The ISMS continued to fulfill the ISO/IEC 27001's requirements, but Techmanic failed to resolve the nonconformities related to the hosting services, as reported by its internal auditor. In addition, the internal audit report had several inconsistencies, which questioned the independence of the internal auditor during the audit of hosting services. Based on this, the extension certification was not granted. As a result, Techmanic requested a transfer to another certification body. In the meantime, the company released a statement to its clients stating that the ISO/IEC 27001 certification covers the IT services, as well as the hosting services.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Auditors recommended Techmanic for certification after following up on corrective actions remotely. Is this acceptable?

  1. Yes, auditors may follow up on action plans remotely since minor nonconformities were detected
  2. No, an audit follow-up must be performed since the audit report contained nonconformities
  3. No, an audit follow-up must be performed on-site since an extension was requested

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

In this scenario, the auditor found minor nonconformities that did not affect the effectiveness of the ISMS. Therefore, it is acceptable for the auditors to follow up on action plans remotely. The follow-up process in such cases is often conducted remotely when the nonconformities are minor and do not impact the overall functioning of the ISMS. The auditors can review the corrective actions and their implementation remotely to verify that the company has addressed the nonconformities effectively. However, for more critical nonconformities or for cases involving a scope extension, an on-site follow-up might be required.



Scenario: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

Techmanic has been ISO/IEC 27001 certified for a year and regards this certification with pride. During the certification audit, the auditor found some inconsistencies in its ISMS implementation. Since the observed situations did not affect the capability of its ISMS to achieve the intended results, Techmanic was certified after auditors followed up on the root cause analysis and corrective actions remotely. During that year, the company added hosting to its list of services and requested to expand its certification scope to include that area. The auditor in charge approved the request and notified Techmanic that the extension audit would be conducted during the surveillance audit.

Techmanic underwent a surveillance audit to verify its ISMS's continued effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 27001. The surveillance audit aimed to ensure that Techmanic's security practices, including the recent addition of hosting services, aligned seamlessly with the rigorous requirements of the certification.

The auditor strategically utilized the findings from previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity with the purpose of replacing the need for additional recertification audits, specifically in the IT consultancy sector. Recognizing the value of continual improvement and learning from past assessments, Techmanic implemented a practice of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports. This proactive approach not only facilitated identifying and resolving potential nonconformities but also aimed to streamline the recertification process in the IT consultancy sector.

During the surveillance audit, several nonconformities were found. The ISMS continued to fulfill the ISO/IEC 27001's requirements, but Techmanic failed to resolve the nonconformities related to the hosting services, as reported by its internal auditor. In addition, the internal audit report had several inconsistencies, which questioned the independence of the internal auditor during the audit of hosting services. Based on this, the extension certification was not granted. As a result, Techmanic requested a transfer to another certification body. In the meantime, the company released a statement to its clients stating that the ISO/IEC 27001 certification covers the IT services, as well as the hosting services.

According to scenario, the auditor decided to conduct the extension audit during the surveillance audit. How do you define this situation?

  1. Acceptable, as extension audits are conducted during the surveillance audit
  2. Unacceptable, as the auditor cannot approve the extension audit
  3. Unacceptable, as extension audits are only conducted after the second year of the initial certification audit

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

It is acceptable for the extension audit to be conducted during the surveillance audit. This is a common practice when an organization wants to extend its ISO/IEC 27001 certification to include additional services or areas. The extension audit ensures that the new areas, in this case, hosting services, comply with the requirements of the ISMS. The extension audit can be conducted during a surveillance audit, as long as the audit scope covers the new area and the necessary verification is performed.



Scenario: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

Techmanic has been ISO/IEC 27001 certified for a year and regards this certification with pride. During the certification audit, the auditor found some inconsistencies in its ISMS implementation. Since the observed situations did not affect the capability of its ISMS to achieve the intended results, Techmanic was certified after auditors followed up on the root cause analysis and corrective actions remotely. During that year, the company added hosting to its list of services and requested to expand its certification scope to include that area. The auditor in charge approved the request and notified Techmanic that the extension audit would be conducted during the surveillance audit.

Techmanic underwent a surveillance audit to verify its ISMS's continued effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 27001. The surveillance audit aimed to ensure that Techmanic's security practices, including the recent addition of hosting services, aligned seamlessly with the rigorous requirements of the certification.

The auditor strategically utilized the findings from previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity with the purpose of replacing the need for additional recertification audits, specifically in the IT consultancy sector. Recognizing the value of continual improvement and learning from past assessments, Techmanic implemented a practice of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports. This proactive approach not only facilitated identifying and resolving potential nonconformities but also aimed to streamline the recertification process in the IT consultancy sector.

During the surveillance audit, several nonconformities were found. The ISMS continued to fulfill the ISO/IEC 27001's requirements, but Techmanic failed to resolve the nonconformities related to the hosting services, as reported by its internal auditor. In addition, the internal audit report had several inconsistencies, which questioned the independence of the internal auditor during the audit of hosting services. Based on this, the extension certification was not granted. As a result, Techmanic requested a transfer to another certification body. In the meantime, the company released a statement to its clients stating that the ISO/IEC 27001 certification covers the IT services, as well as the hosting services.

Based on scenario, is the purpose of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity for Techmanic appropriately defined?

  1. Yes, the purpose of the recertification activity is to replace the need for recertification audits in the IT consultancy sector
  2. No, the purpose of the recertification activity is to compare Techmanic's software development with industry benchmarks
  3. No, the purpose of the recertification activity is to consider the performance of Techmanic's management system over the certification cycle

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The purpose of the recertification activity is to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the organization's Information Security Management System (ISMS) over the entire certification cycle. This involves assessing how well the system has been maintained, whether it has been continually improved, and if it continues to meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001.



Scenario: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

Techmanic has been ISO/IEC 27001 certified for a year and regards this certification with pride. During the certification audit, the auditor found some inconsistencies in its ISMS implementation. Since the observed situations did not affect the capability of its ISMS to achieve the intended results, Techmanic was certified after auditors followed up on the root cause analysis and corrective actions remotely. During that year, the company added hosting to its list of services and requested to expand its certification scope to include that area. The auditor in charge approved the request and notified Techmanic that the extension audit would be conducted during the surveillance audit.

Techmanic underwent a surveillance audit to verify its ISMS's continued effectiveness and compliance with ISO/IEC 27001. The surveillance audit aimed to ensure that Techmanic's security practices, including the recent addition of hosting services, aligned seamlessly with the rigorous requirements of the certification.

The auditor strategically utilized the findings from previous surveillance audit reports in the recertification activity with the purpose of replacing the need for additional recertification audits, specifically in the IT consultancy sector. Recognizing the value of continual improvement and learning from past assessments, Techmanic implemented a practice of reviewing previous surveillance audit reports. This proactive approach not only facilitated identifying and resolving potential nonconformities but also aimed to streamline the recertification process in the IT consultancy sector.

During the surveillance audit, several nonconformities were found. The ISMS continued to fulfill the ISO/IEC 27001's requirements, but Techmanic failed to resolve the nonconformities related to the hosting services, as reported by its internal auditor. In addition, the internal audit report had several inconsistencies, which questioned the independence of the internal auditor during the audit of hosting services. Based on this, the extension certification was not granted. As a result, Techmanic requested a transfer to another certification body. In the meantime, the company released a statement to its clients stating that the ISO/IEC 27001 certification covers the IT services, as well as the hosting services.

According to scenario, is questioning the independence of the internal auditor important given the inconsistencies found in the internal audit report?

  1. No, internal auditors should only be independent when a surveillance audit relies on their findings
  2. No, internal auditors cannot be independent since they have an advisory role
  3. Yes, internal auditors must be independent of the audited activities

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

Independence is a critical principle for internal auditors, as it ensures objectivity and impartiality in their assessments. ISO/IEC 27001 emphasizes that internal auditors should be free from any influence that could affect their judgment regarding the activities they are auditing. In this scenario, questioning the independence of the internal auditor is important because the auditor's potential bias or conflict of interest could undermine the credibility of the internal audit findings, especially when discrepancies or inconsistencies are found in the internal audit report. Independence ensures the integrity of the auditing process and its outcomes.






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

ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Discussions & Posts