Get ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Implementer Dumps : Verified PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 : 2022 Lead Implementer exam

According to the ISO/IEC 27001 : 2022 Lead Implementer course, one of the factors that can negatively affect the internal audit process is the lack of cooperation from the auditees, which can manifest as restricting the internal auditor’s access to offices and documentation1. This can hinder the auditor’s ability to collect sufficient and appropriate audit evidence, verify the conformity of the information security management system (ISMS) with the audit criteria, and identify any nonconformities or opportunities for improvement2. Therefore, the auditees should be informed of the audit objectives,scope, criteria, and schedule in advance, and should provide the auditor with all the necessary information and resources to conduct the audit effectively3.

References: 1: PECB, ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course, Module 9: Internal Audit, slide 22 2: PECB, ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course, Module 9: Internal Audit, slide 23 3: PECB, ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course, Module 9: Internal Audit, slide 24

One of the ways to prepare employees for an ISO/IEC 27001 audit is to conduct practice interviews with them. This can help them to familiarize themselves with the audit process, the types of questions they might be asked, and the evidence they need to provide to demonstrate compliance with the standard. Practice interviews can also help employees to identify any gaps or weaknesses in their knowledge or performance, and to address them before the actual audit. Practice interviews can be conducted by internal auditors, managers, or consultants, and should cover the relevant scope, objectives, and criteria of the audit. (From the PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course Manual, page 113)

References:

• PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course Manual, page 113
• PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Info Kit, page 10
• 5 Step Plan: How to Prepare for an ISO 27001 Certification Audit

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, the corrective action process consists of the following steps12:

• Reacting to the nonconformity and, as applicable, taking action to control and correct it and deal with the consequences
• Evaluating the need for action to eliminate the root cause(s) of the nonconformity, in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere
• Implementing the action needed
• Reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken
• Making changes to the information security management system, if necessary

In scenario 9, the ISMS project manager did not complete the last step of reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken. This step is important to verify that the corrective action has achieved the intended results and that no adverse effects have been introduced. The review can be done by using various methods, such as audits, tests, inspections, or performance indicators3. Therefore, the ISMS project manager did not complete the corrective action process appropriately.

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 10.2 2: Procedure for Corrective Action [ISO 27001 templates] 3: ISO 27001 Clause 10.2 Nonconformity and corrective action

Qualitative risk assessment is a method of evaluating risks based on nonnumerical categories, such as low, medium, and high. It is often used when there is not enough data or resources to perform a quantitative risk assessment, which involves numerical values and calculations. Qualitative risk assessment relies on the subjective judgment and experience of the risk assessors, and it can be influenced by various factors, such as thecontext, the stakeholders, and the criteria. According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Annex A, control A.8.2.1 states: “The organization shall define and apply an information security risk assessment process that: … d) identifies the risk owners; e) analyses the risks: i) assesses the consequences that would result if the risks identified were to materialize; ii) assesses the realistic likelihood of the occurrence of the risks; f) identifies and evaluates options for the treatment of risks; g) determines the levels of residual risk and whether these are acceptable; and h) identifies the risk owners for the residual risks.” Therefore, TradeB’s decision to define the level of risk based on three nonnumerical categories indicates that they used a qualitative risk assessment process.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Annex A, control A.8.2.1
• PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Implementer Course, Module 7, slides 12-13

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2013, clause 9.1, an organization must monitor, measure, analyze and evaluate its information security performance and effectiveness. This includes determining what needs to be monitored and measured, the methods for doing so, when and by whom the monitoring and measurement shall be performed, when the results shall be analyzed and evaluated, and who shall be responsible for ensuring that the actions arising from the analysis and evaluation are taken 1.

SunDee failed to comply with this requirement and did not monitor or measure the performance and effectiveness of its ISMS for the past two years. As a result, the company did not have any objective evidence or indicators to demonstrate the achievement of its information security objectives, the effectiveness of its controls, the satisfaction of its interested parties, or the identification and treatment of its risks. Thisalso meant that the company did not conduct regular management reviews of its ISMS, as required by clause 9.3, which would provide an opportunity for the top management to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the ISMS, and to decide on any changes or improvements needed 1.

Just before the recertification audit, the company decided to conduct an internal audit, as required by clause 9.2, which is a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled 1. However, the company did not have a well-defined audit program, scope, criteria, or methodology, and relied on the written reports of its staff for the past two years. This caused a disruption in the workforce, as most of the staff had to compile their reports for their departments, leaving the Production Department with less than the optimum workforce, which decreased the company’s stock. Moreover, the internal audit process was very inconsistent, as the reports were written by different employees with different styles, formats, and levels of detail. The internal audit process also lacked any qualitative measures, such as performance indicators, metrics, or benchmarks, to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS.

Therefore, the cause of SunDee’s workforce disruption was the negligence of performance evaluation and monitoring and measurement procedures, which led to a lack of objective evidence, a poorly planned and executed internal audit, and a decrease in the company’s productivity and stock value.

References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements