ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 2022 Lead Auditor exam Questions and Answers

 Information or data that are classified as public do not require labeling. Public information or data are those that are intended for general disclosure and have no impact on the organization’s operations or reputation if disclosed. Labeling is a method of implementing classification, which is a process of structuring information according to its sensitivity and value for the organization. Labeling helps to identify the level of protection and handling required for each type of information. Information or data that are classified as internal, confidential, or highly confidential require labeling, as they contain information that is not suitable for public disclosure and may cause harm or loss to the organization if disclosed. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

UpNet's certification was suspended because the certification body was not informed about the significant changes caused by the new department, impacting the governance of the management system. ISO/IEC 27001 requires organizations to inform the certification body of any changes that significantly impact the ISMS.

The role of the audit team leader does not include setting up an ethics committee. The primary responsibilities of the audit team leader include planning the audit, directing the activities of the audit team, ensuring compliance with the auditing standards, managing conflicts that arise during the audit, and presenting audit conclusions.

References: ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the audit reports should be produced by the audit team leader with input from the audit team, as they are responsible for collecting and analysing the audit evidence1. The audit reports should also include or refer to the audit plan, as it provides the basis for the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methodology2. Furthermore, the audit reports should be produced within an agreed timescale, as it is part of the audit programme management and ensures timely communication of the audit results3. Additionally, the audit reports should always be reviewed by the client, dated, and signed as ‘accepted’, as it confirms the audit completion and the formal agreement on the audit findings and conclusions4.

The other statements are false because:

• Audit reports should not be sent to the organisation’s top management first because their contents could be embarrassing, as this would compromise the audit impartiality and confidentiality5. Audit reports should be distributed according to the audit programme procedures and the audit plan.
• Audit reports should not be assumed suitable for general circulation unless they are specifically marked confidential, as this would violate the audit confidentiality and the protection of personal information. Audit reports should be treated as confidential documents and only shared with the authorised parties.
• Audit reports should not only evidence nonconformity, as this would limit the audit scope and value. Audit reports should also evidence conformity, improvement opportunities, good practices, and audit observations.
• Audit reports that are no longer required should not be destroyed as part of the organisation’s general waste, as this would pose a risk to the audit confidentiality and the information security. Audit reports should be retained, disposed, or destroyed according to the audit programme procedures and the applicable legal requirements.

References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 32, section 4.4.32: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.43: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 31, section 4.4.14: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 34, section 4.4.55: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 32, section 4.4.3. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 33, section 4.4.4. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 24, section 4.3.1. : PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 34, section 4.4.5.

The auditor should verify if the information required by the standard is documented, without necessarily focusing on the format, as long as the content meets the requirements of the standard. ISO/IEC 27001 does not mandate a specific format for documentation, only that necessary information is appropriately documented, maintained, and controlled.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 7.5 (Documented information)

This is a minor nonconformity. The backup frequency not adhering to the company's procedure of daily backups but occurring once a month represents a deviation from established processes, yet it might not immediately impact the effectiveness of the information security management system.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.3 (Backup)

The purpose of a follow-up audit is to verify the completion and effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the auditee in response to the nonconformities identified in a previous audit1. A follow-up audit is a type of audit that is conducted after an initial audit, and it focuses on the specific areas where nonconformities were found and corrective actions were agreed upon2. A follow-up audit can be conducted as a separate audit or as part of a scheduled audit, depending on the nature and severity of the nonconformities and the audit programme objectives3.

The other options are not the purpose of a follow-up audit, but rather the purpose of other types of audits. For example:

•Option A is the purpose of a performance audit, which is a type of audit that evaluates the effectiveness of the management system in achieving its intended results4.

•Option B is the purpose of a compliance audit, which is a type of audit that verifies the conformity of the management system with the specified requirements, such as the ISMS objectives5.

•Option C is the purpose of a process audit, which is a type of audit that examines the inputs, activities, outputs, and interactions of a specific process within the management system, such as the risk treatment process.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 6.7; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 3.7; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 5.5.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 3.6; 5: ISO 19011:2018, 3.5; : ISO 19011:2018, 3.4; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : [ISO 19011:2018]

Corrective action is a process of identifying and eliminating the root causes of nonconformities or incidents that have occurred or could potentially occur, in order to prevent their recurrence or occurrence. Corrective action is part of the improvement requirement of ISO 27001 and follows a standard workflow of identification, evaluation, implementation, review and documentation of corrections and corrective actions. References: Procedure for Corrective Action, Nonconformity & Corrective Action For ISO 27001 Requirement 10.1, PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor (page 12)

Yes, assessing the ISMS as a whole can be acceptable if the audit team obtains reasonable assurance that the system conforms to the standard requirements. The approach taken by the audit team must still ensure that all significant aspects of the ISMS are evaluated adequately, and if this is achieved through a holistic assessment, it is considered sufficient.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

The technical expert can communicate their audit findings to the auditee only through one of the audit team members. This ensures that communications remain coordinated and that the audit team maintains control over the audit process.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Yes, the audit team must evaluate the action plan and verify if it is appropriate for correcting the detected nonconformities. This is part of the auditor's responsibilities to ensure that the proposed actions adequately address the issues identified during the audit.

The four statements that are true are:

•Major nonconformities may be subject to on-site follow up

•The action taken to address major nonconformities is typically more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities

•Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity

•Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance

According to ISO 19011:2018, a nonconformity is the non-fulfilment of a requirement1. Nonconformities may be graded to indicate their significance, based on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The grading of nonconformities may use different terms or levels, such as major, minor, critical, etc., depending on the nature and context of the audit3. However, some common definitions of major and minor nonconformities are:

•A major nonconformity is a nonconformity that affects the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents a significant breakdown of the management system4. Major nonconformities may require immediate corrective action and on-site follow up by the auditor to verify their closure5.

•A minor nonconformity is a nonconformity that does not affect the ability of the management system to achieve its intended results, or that represents an isolated lapse of the management system4. Minor nonconformities may require corrective action within a specified time frame and off-site verification by the auditor to confirm their closure5.

The action taken to address nonconformities depends on the severity and impact of the nonconformity, and the risk of recurrence or escalation. Typically, the action taken to address major nonconformities is more substantial than the action taken to address minor nonconformities, as it may involve identifying and eliminating the root cause of the problem, implementing preventive measures, and monitoring the effectiveness of the solution.

Several minor nonconformities can be grouped into a major nonconformity if they are related to the same requirement, process, or area, and if they indicate a systemic failure or a significant risk to the management system. The auditor should use professional judgment and evidence-based approach to decide whether to group or report nonconformities individually.

The other statements are false, based on the guidance of ISO 19011:2018. For example:

•Option B is false, because nonconformities can be graded using different terms or levels, depending on the criteria established by the audit programme or the audit client2. The terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’ are not mandatory or universal, but rather examples of possible grading levels3.

•Option D is false, because very minor nonconformities should not be re-graded as opportunities for improvement, but rather reported as nonconformities, as they still represent a non-fulfilment of a requirement1. An opportunity for improvement is a suggestion for enhancing the performance or effectiveness of the management system, but it is not a nonconformity or a requirement.

•Option F is false, because the grading of nonconformities does not have to be explained to the auditee at the opening meeting, but rather at the closing meeting, where the audit findings and conclusions are presented and discussed. The opening meeting is intended to provide an overview of the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and methods, and to confirm the audit arrangements and logistics.

•Option G is false, because the auditee is not always responsible for determining the criteria for grading nonconformities, but rather the audit programme or the audit client, in consultation with the auditee and other relevant parties2. The auditee is responsible for taking corrective action to address the nonconformities, and for providing evidence of their completion and effectiveness.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 3.13; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.2; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6.3; 4: ISO Audit Findings :Non-conformance - AUVA Certification1; 5: Annex III: Nonconformity grading - FSSC2; : ISO 27001 Certification – Major vs. Minor Nonconformities - Advisera3; : GUIDANCE FOR ADDRESSING AND CLEARING NONCONFORMITIES - SADCAS4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; : ISO 19011:2018, 3.14; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.4; : ISO 19011:2018, 6.7.2; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]; : [ISO 19011:2018]

According to ISO 19011:2018, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.6 requires the audit team leader to conduct a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at the end of the audit to present the audit conclusions and any findings1. The closing meeting should also provide an opportunity for the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1. Therefore, when preparing for the closing meeting, an ISMS auditor should consider the following actions:

• I will advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate our findings. It is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a systematic and consistent approach to collecting and evaluating audit evidence and reaching audit conclusions. The auditor should advise the auditee that the purpose of the closing meeting is for the audit team to communicate their findings, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also explain that it is not an opportunity for the auditee to challenge these findings, as they have already been discussed and confirmed during the audit. However, the auditor should also invite the auditee to ask questions, clarify issues, acknowledge the findings, and comment on the audit process1.
• I will schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a planned and agreed audit programme and schedule. The auditor should schedule a closing meeting with the auditee’s representatives at which the audit conclusions will be presented, in accordance with clause 6.6 of ISO 19011:20181. The auditor should also ensure that the closing meeting is attended by those responsible for managing or implementing the ISMS, as well as any other relevant parties1.
• I will discuss any follow-up required with my audit team: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a risk-based approach to determining and reporting any follow-up actions required by the auditee or the certification body. The auditor should discuss any follow-up required with their audit team, such as verifying corrective actions for nonconformities or conducting a subsequent audit1. The auditor should also document any follow-up actions in the audit report1.
• I will review and, as appropriate, approve my teams audit conclusions: This action is appropriate because it reflects the fact that the auditor has followed a rigorous and professional process to reaching and reporting audit conclusions. The auditor should review and, as appropriate, approve their teams audit conclusions, which are based on objective evidence and professional judgement. The auditor should also ensure that their teams audit conclusions are consistent with the audit objectives and scope, and reflect the overall performance and conformity of the ISMS1.

The three options of the correct responses of an audit team leader to the request of the Technical Director are:

• B. Advise the Technical Director that his request will be included in the audit report.
• D. Advise the Technical Director that the nonconformity must stand since the evidence obtained for it was clear.
• H. State that a follow up audit will be necessary to review the evidence for the updated Statement of Applicability.

• B. This response is correct because the audit team leader should document the request of the Technical Director and include it in the audit report, along with the audit findings and conclusions12. This will ensure transparency and traceability of the audit process and the audit results.
• D. This response is correct because the audit team leader should not withdraw the nonconformity based on the amended Statement of Applicability alone. The nonconformity was raised against clause 6.1.3.e of ISO 27001:2022, which requires the organisation to produce and maintain a risk treatment plan that defines how the information security risks are treated, including the controls selected and their implementation status34. The Statement of Applicability is only one part of the risk treatment plan, and it does not provide sufficient evidence that the controls have been implemented effectively. The audit team leader should base the nonconformity on the objective evidence obtained during the audit, not on the subjective claims of the auditee12.
• H. This response is correct because the audit team leader should state that a follow up audit will be necessary to review the evidence for the updated Statement of Applicability. A follow up audit is an audit that is conducted after a previous audit to verify the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions and/or opportunities for improvement that were agreed upon as a result of the previous audit56. The follow up audit should seek to ensure that the nonconformity has been effectively addressed and that the ISMS is compliant and effective. The follow up audit should also consider any new or changed risks or requirements that may affect the ISMS56.

References:

1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 25 2: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.1.3.e 4: ISO/IEC 27005:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management, clause 8.3.2 5: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 25 6: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.7

The audit procedure used here is "analysis." The audit team analyzed server logs to verify if they can be edited or deleted, focusing on evaluating the logs' properties and the controls over their manipulation to ensure they comply with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

These three characteristics are the fundamental properties of information security, as defined by the ISO/IEC 27000 standard, which provides the overview and vocabulary of information security, cybersecurity, and privacy protection12. They are also the basis for the information security objectives and controls of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system34. The definitions of these characteristics are as follows12:

•Availability: The property of being accessible and usable upon demand by an authorized entity.

•Confidentiality: The property that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes.

•Integrity: The property of safeguarding the accuracy and completeness of information and processing methods.

The other characteristics listed in the question, such as clarity, accessibility, completeness, importance, and efficiency, are not directly related to information security, although they may be relevant for other aspects of information management, such as quality, usability, or performance.

References: = 1: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary, clause 32: ISO/IEC 27000:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Overview and vocabulary13: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 6.24: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 (en), Information security, cybersecurity and privacy protection — Information security management systems — Requirements1

According to the ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, the following corrections and corrective actions are expected from ABC in response to the nonconformity:

• B. The Service Manager provides evidence of analysis of the cause of nonconformity and how the ABC evaluates the effectiveness of implemented corrective actions. This is part of the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall determine the causes of nonconformities and evaluate the need for action to ensure that they do not recur or occur elsewhere12. The organization shall also evaluate the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken12.
• F. ABC identifies and checks compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties. This is part of the requirement of clause 4.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall determine the external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its information security management system12. This includes the legal and contractual requirements related to the information security aspects of the organization’s activities, products and services12.
• G. The Service Manager implements the corrective actions and Customer Service Representatives evaluate the effectiveness of implemented corrective actions. This is part of the requirement of clause 10.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which states that the organization shall implement any action needed and retain documented information as evidence of the results of any action taken12. The organization shall also monitor, measure, analyze and evaluate the information security performance and the effectiveness of the information security management system12.

References:

• 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) course, CQI and IRCA Certified Training, 1
• 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course, PECB, 2

• B. This clause requires the organisation to determine the interested parties that are relevant to the ISMS, and the requirements of these interested parties12. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to identify the stakeholders that have an influence or an interest in the information security of the organisation, such as customers, suppliers, regulators, employees, etc. The organisation should also consider the needs and expectations of these interested parties when defining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that they are met and communicated.
• E. This clause requires the organisation to establish an information security policy that provides the framework for setting the information security objectives and guiding the information security activities13. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to define the direction and principles of the ISMS, and to align them with the strategic goals and context of the organisation. The information security policy should also be consistent with the scope of the ISMS, and should be communicated and understood within the organisation and by relevant interested parties.
• F. This clause requires the organisation to determine the internal and external issues that are relevant to the purpose and the context of the organisation, and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of the ISMS14. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to understand the factors and conditions that influence the information security of the organisation, such as the legal, technological, social, economic, environmental, etc. The organisation should also monitor and review these issues, and consider them when defining the scope of the ISMS.
• H. This clause requires the organisation to determine the boundaries and applicability of the ISMS to establish its scope15. This clause is relevant to the verification of the scope of the ISMS because it helps the organisation to describe the information and processes that are included in the ISMS, and to document the scope in a clear and concise manner. The organisation should also consider the issues, requirements, and interfaces identified in clauses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 when determining the scope of the ISMS, and ensure that the scope is appropriate to the nature and scale of the organisation.

References:

1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 17 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 4.2 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 5.2 4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 4.1 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clause 4.3

According to the PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the auditee should take the following actions in response to a nonconformity against clause 6.1.3.e of ISO/IEC 27001:20221:

• Implement the appropriate risk treatment for each of the applicable controls, as this is the main requirement of clause 6.1.3.e and the objective of the risk treatment process2.
• Revise the relevant content in the Statement of Applicability to justify their exclusion, as this is the expected output of the risk treatment process and the evidence of the risk-based decisions3.
• Revisit the risk assessment process relating to the three controls, as this is the input for the risk treatment process and the source of identifying the risks and the controls4.

The other options are not correct because:

• Allocating responsibility for producing evidence to prove to auditors that the controls are implemented is not a valid action, as the audit team already found that there was no evidence of the implementation of the three controls.
• Compiling plans for the periodic assessment of the risks associated with the controls is not a valid action, as this is part of the risk monitoring and review process, not the risk treatment process5.
• Incorporating written procedures for the controls into the organisation’s Security Manual is not a valid action, as this is part of the documentation and operation of the ISMS, not the risk treatment process.
• Removing the three controls from the Statement of Applicability is not a valid action, as this is not a sufficient justification for their exclusion and does not reflect the risk treatment process.
• Undertaking a survey of customers to find out if the controls are needed by them is not a valid action, as this is not a relevant criterion for the risk assessment and treatment process, which should be based on the organisation’s own context and objectives.

References: 1: PECB Candidate Handbook for ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 36, section 4.5.22: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.e3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.f4: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.25: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.2. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.5 and 8. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3.d. : ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 4.1 and 4.2.

The three options of the corrections and corrective actions listed that you would expect ABC to make in response to the nonconformity are:

• B. ABC cancels the service agreement with WeCare.
• E. ABC introduces background checks on information security performance for all suppliers.
• F. ABC periodically monitors compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties.

• B. This option is a possible correction and corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. A correction is the action taken to eliminate a detected nonconformity, while a corrective action is the action taken to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent its recurrence1. By cancelling the service agreement with WeCare, ABC could stop the unauthorized use of residents’ personal data and protect their privacy and rights. This could also prevent further complaints and legal issues from the residents and their family members. However, this option may also have some drawbacks, such as the loss of a service provider, the need to find an alternative solution, and the potential impact on the residents’ well-being.
• E. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By introducing background checks on information security performance for all suppliers, ABC could ensure that they select and work with reliable and trustworthy partners who respect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information they handle. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.15.1.1 (Information security policy for supplier relationships), which requires the organisation to agree and document information security requirements for mitigating the risks associated with supplier access to the organisation’s assets2.
• F. This option is a possible corrective action that ABC could take to address the nonconformity. By periodically monitoring compliance with all applicable legislation and contractual requirements involving third parties, ABC could verify that the suppliers are fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities regarding information security. This could also help ABC to comply with information security control A.18.1.1 (Identification of applicable legislation and contractual requirements), which requires the organisation to identify, document, and keep up to date the relevant legislative, regulatory, contractual, and other requirements to which the organisation is subject3.

References:

1: ISO 27000:2018 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Overview and vocabulary, clause 3.9 and 3.10 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.15.1.1 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Annex A, control A.18.1.1

A certification body cannot certify an organization if it has provided consultancy services to that organization. This situation presents a conflict of interest, as the certification body is required to maintain impartiality and objectivity. The ISO/IEC 17021-1 standard, which sets out requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems, specifies that providing both services to the same client is incompatible.

References: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

Yes, according to ISO/IEC 27001, the company needs to provide evidence of the implementation of procedures regarding the logging of user activities. This requirement is essential to ensure that events are recorded and regularly reviewed, supporting the detection and prevention of security incidents.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause A.12.4 (Logging and monitoring)

The correct options are:

• There is a nonconformity (NC). The organisation’s access control arrangements are not operating effectively as an individual who is no longer employed by the organisation is being permitted to access the nursing home’s ICT systems. This does not conform with control A.5.15. (B): This option is correct because control A.5.15 requires the organization to implement secure log-on procedures and manage user access rights. The organization should ensure that only authorized users can access the ICT systems and that the access rights are revoked or modified when the user status changes. The fact that Scott, who resigned 9 months ago, still has an active account on the SCM and can check out the source code, indicates a failure of the access control arrangements and a nonconformity with the control A.5.15.
• There is a nonconformity (NC). The IT Security manager did not make sure the user account for Scott was removed from the SCM and did not complete the user deregistration process after the resignation. This does not conform with clause 9.1 and control A.5.15. ©: This option is correct because clause 9.1 requires the organization to monitor, measure, analyze, and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS. The organization should have processes and indicators to verify that the ISMS requirements and objectives are met and that the ISMS is continually improved. The organization should also ensure that the results of the monitoring and measurement are documented and communicated. The fact that the IT Security manager did not follow the user de-registration procedure and did not document or communicate the exception for Scott, indicates a failure of the monitoring and measurement processes and a nonconformity with clause 9.1 and control A.5.15.
• There is a nonconformity (NC). The organisation has failed to identify the security risks associated with leaving Scott’s account open when he was only re-engaged for a short period monthly. This does not conform with clause 8.2. (F): This option is correct because clause 8.2 requires the organization to establish and maintain an information security risk management process. The organization should identify the information security risks, analyze and evaluate the risks, and treat the risks according to the risk criteria and the risk treatment options. The organization should also monitor and review the risks and the risk treatment plan periodically and document the results. The fact that the organization did not identify the security risks associated with Scott’s access to the SCM and the source code, such as unauthorized disclosure, modification, or deletion of the information, indicates a failure of the risk management process and a nonconformity with clause 8.2.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 7.2.2, the organization shall ensure that all persons who have access to information are aware of the information security policy and their contribution to the effectiveness of the ISMS, including the benefits of improved information security performance2. Therefore, awareness training on information security is a requirement for all persons, not just new hires. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

• A follow-up audit may be carried out where nonconformities are major. This is true because a major nonconformity is a situation that raises significant doubt about the ability of the organization’s management system to achieve its intended results, and therefore requires immediate corrective action. A follow-up audit is necessary to verify the effectiveness of the corrective action and the conformity of the management system12.
• A follow-up audit may be carried out where nonconformities are minor. This is true because a minor nonconformity is a situation that does not affect the capability of the management system to achieve its intended results, but represents a deviation from the specified requirements. A follow-up audit may be conducted to check the implementation of the corrective action and the improvement of the management system12.
• The outcomes of a follow-up audit should be reported to top management and the audit team leader who carried out the audit where the nonconformities were initially identified. This is true because the top management is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness and continual improvement of the management system, and the audit team leader is accountable for the audit process and the audit conclusions. The follow-up audit report should provide them with objective evidence of the status of the nonconformities and the corrective actions taken by the auditee13.
• The outcomes of a follow-up audit should be reported to the individual managing the audit programme and the audit client. This is true because the individual managing the audit programme is responsible for planning, implementing, monitoring and reviewing the audit activities, and the audit client is the organization or person requesting an audit. The follow-up audit report should inform them of the results of the follow-up audit and any changes in the certification status of the auditee13.

References :=

• ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

The correct option is D. There is a nonconformity (NC). The Service Manager does not comply with the software security management procedure. (Relevant to clause 8.1, control A.8.30). The IT Manager should have approved the test results according to the software security management procedure, not the Service Manager. The Service Manager’s decision to accept the failed security tests also violates the “security-by-design” and “security-by-default” principles that the organization adopted. The other options are either incorrect or irrelevant. The organization and developer did perform acceptance tests, but they failed (B, C). The Service Manager’s decision to continue the service does not justify the nonconformity (A). References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 8.1 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.3, the organisation shall determine the scope of the information security management system (ISMS) by considering the internal and external issues, the requirements of interested parties, and the interfaces and dependencies with other organisations12

In this case, the ISMS scope covers an outsourced data center that hosts the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server for healthcare monitoring and analysis of the residents’ data. Therefore, the audit evidence you need to find to verify the scope of the ISMS should include:

• The auditee has identified the governmental authorities’ needs and expectations on healthcare services and patient data handling. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to comply with the relevant laws and regulations regarding the quality, safety, and privacy of healthcare services and patient data12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on how they should protect the resident’s personal data. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident’s personal data that is collected, processed, and stored by the electronic wristband and the AI cloud server12
• The IT service agreement with the data center where the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud server is located. This is an interface and dependency with another organisation that affects the ISMS scope, as the auditee has to control the externally provided processes, products, and services that are relevant to the ISMS, and to implement appropriate contractual requirements related to information security12

The following options are not relevant or sufficient for verifying the scope of the ISMS:

• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the facility and environmental safety. This is an external issue and an interested party requirement, but it does not affect the ISMS scope, as it is not related to information security12
• The auditee has ISO 9001 certification. This is an indication of the auditee’s quality management system, but it does not verify the scope of the ISMS, as it is not related to information security12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on the comfort facility, medical professional’s competence, and clean environment. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not affect the ISMS scope, as they are not related to information security12
• The auditee has identified the resident’s needs and expectations on healthcare medical treatment services. These are external issues and interested party requirements, but they do not verify the scope of the ISMS, as they are not specific to information security12
• The auditee is considering the purchase of a healthcare monitoring app from an external software company. This is a potential change that may affect the ISMS scope in the future, but it does not verify the current scope of the ISMS, as it is not yet implemented or controlled12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

"An audit finding is the result of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria."

The words that best complete the sentence to describe an audit finding are evaluation and evidence. According to ISO 19011:2022, an audit finding is the result of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria12. The other options are either not related to the definition of an audit finding or do not fit the sentence grammatically. References: 1: ISO 19011:2022, Guidelines for auditing management systems, Clause 3.11 \n2: PECB Certified ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Preparation Guide, Domain 5: Conducting an ISO/IEC 27001 audit

• A third-party audit team leader is a person who leads an audit team that conducts audits on behalf of an external organization, such as a certification body, that provides certification or accreditation services to other organizations12.
• One of the main responsibilities of a third-party audit team leader is to act on behalf of the certification body, which means to represent its interests, policies, and procedures during the audit process12.
• Acting on behalf of the certification body involves communicating with the audit client and the auditee, planning and conducting the audit, reporting and evaluating the audit results, and making recommendations for certification or accreditation decisions12.
• Acting on behalf of the certification body also requires maintaining professional integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and competence throughout the audit process12.

References :=

• ISO 19011:2022 Guidelines for auditing management systems
• ISO/IEC 17021-1:2022 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements

The correct sequence of the steps of the audit lifecycle according to ISO 19011:2018 is:

• Step 1: Audit initiation
• Step 2: Audit preparation
• Step 3: Conducting the audit
• Step 4: Preparing and distributing the audit report
• Step 5: Audit completion
• Step 6: Audit follow-up

This sequence reflects the logical order of the audit activities, from establishing the audit objectives, scope and criteria, to verifying the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions. However, ISO 19011:2018 also recognizes that some audit activities can be iterative or concurrent, depending on the nature and complexity of the audit. For example, audit preparation and conducting the audit can overlap when new information or changes occur during the audit. Similarly, audit follow-up can be integrated with audit completion when the corrective actions are verified shortly after the audit. Therefore, the audit lifecycle should be adapted to the specific context and needs of each audit.

You are an experienced ISMS auditor conducting a third-party surveillance audit at an organisation which offers ICT reclamation services. ICT equipment which companies no longer require is processed by the organisation. It is either recommissioned and reused or is securely destroyed.

You notice two servers on a bench in the corner of the room. Both have stickers on them with the server's name, IP address and admin password. You ask the ICT Manager about them, and he tells you they were part of a shipment received yesterday from a regular customer.

Which one action should you take?

A.Ask the auditee to remove the labels, then carry on with the audit

B.Ask the ICT Manager to record an information security incident and initiate the information security incident management process

C.Note the audit finding and check the process for dealing with incoming shipments relating to customer IT security

D.Raise a nonconformity against control 5.31 'Legal, staturary, regulatory and contractual requirements'

E.Raise a nonconformity against control 8.20 'network security' (networks and network devices shall be secured, managed and controlled to protect information in systems and applications)

F.Record what you have seen in your audit findings, but take no further action

Answer: C

You are an experienced ISMS audit team leader. You are currently conducting a third-party surveillance audit of an

international haulage organisation. You have sampled four internal audit reports which state:

Report 1 - Auditor: Mr James.

Over the year the organisation has failed to meet its promised delivery dates on 23 occasions out of 100. This is against a target of '95% of deliveries on time'.

Grading - Minor

Corrective Action due: Within 9 months.

Report 2 - Auditor: Mr James.

Between January and March, it was noted 125 complaints were received about the Service Desk Team. Clients

accused them of being rude and unresponsive.

Grading - Minor

Corrective Action due: Within 12 months.

Report 3 - Auditor: Mr James.

Of the 40 customer orders received last month, 38 were correctly processed. Of the remaining 2, one was missing a

signature and one was missing a date.

Grading -

Corrections due: Within 3 weeks

Report 4 - Auditor: Mr Rogers.

Of the 30 personnel records examined, 26 were found to be fully completed whilst the remaining 4 were all missing

the individual's start date.

Grading – Major

Corrections due: Within 1 week

Which four of the options demonstrate the concerns you would have about these reports?

A.I would be concerned as to whether criteria for grading nonconformities are in existence in this organisation

B.I would be concerned as to whether the auditors understand the difference between corrections and corrective actions

C.I would be concerned because action taken to address a major nonconformity should always be completed sooner than action taken to address minor nonconformities

D.I would be concerned that no grading is recorded for Report 3. This could indicate that the auditor did not complete the report correctly or that they failed to make a determination as to severity

E.I would be concerned that the auditors focussed only on information security processes

F.I would be concerned that timing for addressing the nonconformities is significantly different in the four reports

G.I would have a concern that no nonconformity review was conducted

H.I would have a concern that one auditor appeared to be conducting most of the internal audits

Answer: ABDF

As the Information Security Management System audit team leader, you are conducting a second-party audit of an international logistics company on behalf of an online retailer. During the audit, one of your team members reports a nonconformity relating to control 5.18 (Access rights) of Appendix A of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. She found evidence that removing the server access protocols of 20 people who left in the last 3 months took up to 1 week whereas the policy required removing access within 24 hours of their departure.

When the auditee was asked why there was a delay in removing access they replied, 'no one was available in the IT department during that period as a result of COVID-19. As soon as an IT officer became available the rights were removed.

You note that she intends to raise a minor non-conformity against Access rights control (5.18). How should you respond to this?

A.Agree with the raising of a minor non-conformity but against control 5.15, not 5.18.

B.Agree with the raising of the minor non-conformity against 5.18.

C.Disagree with the raising of a minor conformity as appropriate action was taken at the earliest opportunity Take no further action.

D.Disagree with the raising of the minor nonconformity as appropriate action was taken at the earliest opportunity. Instead raise an opportunity for improvement.

E.Disagree with the raising of the minor nonconformity, there is sufficient evidence to justify an escalation to a major non-conformity.

F.Require additional audit evidence to be obtained before determining whether a non-conformity is appropriate.

Answer: A

The main purpose of a Stage 1 audit is to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation’s ISMS documentation, and to assess whether the organisation is prepared for the Stage 2 audit, where the implementation and operation of the ISMS will be verified. The Stage 1 audit also involves verifying the scope, objectives, and context of the ISMS, as well as identifying any areas of concern or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) objectives and content from Quality.org and PECB
• ISO/IEC 27006:2015 Information technology — Security techniques — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of information security management systems Section 7.3.1

The three options that would not be valid audit trails are:

•Collect more evidence on how the organisation manages the Point of Contact (PoC) which monitors vulnerabilities. (Relevant to clause 8.1)

•Collect more evidence on whether terms and definitions are contained in the information security policy. (Relevant to control 5.32)

•Collect more evidence to determine if ISO 27035 (Information security incident management) is used as internal audit criteria. (Relevant to clause 8.13)

These options are not valid audit trails because they are not directly related to the information security incident management process, which is the focus of the audit. The audit trails should be relevant to the objectives, scope, and criteria of the audit, and should provide sufficient and reliable evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions1.

Option E is not valid because the PoC is not a part of the information security incident management process, but rather a role that is responsible for reporting and escalating information security incidents to the appropriate authorities2. The audit trail should focus on how the PoC performs this function, not how the organisation manages the PoC.

Option G is not valid because the terms and definitions are not a part of the information security incident management process, but rather a part of the information security policy, which is a high-level document that defines the organisation’s information security objectives, principles, and responsibilities3. The audit trail should focus on how the information security policy is communicated, implemented, and reviewed, not whether it contains terms and definitions.

Option H is not valid because ISO 27035 is not a part of the information security incident management process, but rather a guidance document that provides best practices for managing information security incidents4. The audit trail should focus on how the organisation follows the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001:2022 for information security incident management, not whether it uses ISO 27035 as an internal audit criteria.

The other options are valid audit trails because they are related to the information security incident management process, and they can provide useful evidence to evaluate the conformity and effectiveness of the process. For example:

•Option A is valid because it relates to control A.5.29, which requires the organisation to establish procedures to isolate and quarantine areas subject to information security incidents, in order to prevent further damage and preserve evidence5. The audit trail should collect evidence on how the organisation implements and tests these procedures, and how they ensure the continuity of information security during disruption.

•Option B is valid because it relates to control A.6.8, which requires the organisation to establish mechanisms for reporting information security events and weaknesses, and to ensure that they are communicated in a timely manner to the appropriate levels within the organisation6. The audit trail should collect evidence on how the organisation defines and uses these mechanisms, and how they monitor and review the reporting process.

•Option C is valid because it relates to clause 7.2, which requires the organisation to provide information security awareness, education, and training to all persons under its control, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities7. The audit trail should collect evidence on how the organisation identifies the information security training needs, how they deliver and record the training, and how they measure the learning outcomes and feedback.

•Option D is valid because it relates to control A.5.27, which requires the organisation to learn from information security incidents and to implement corrective actions to prevent recurrence or reduce impact8. The audit trail should collect evidence on how the organisation analyses and documents the root causes and consequences of information security incidents, how they identify and implement corrective actions, and how they verify the effectiveness of these actions.

•Option F is valid because it relates to control A.5.30, which requires the organisation to establish and maintain a business continuity plan to ensure the availability of information and information processing facilities in the event of a severe information security incident9. The audit trail should collect evidence on how the organisation develops and updates the business continuity plan, how they test and review the plan, and how they communicate and train the relevant personnel on the plan.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; 2: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.6.8.1; 3: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 5.2; 4: ISO/IEC 27035:2016, Introduction; 5: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.5.29; 6: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.6.8; 7: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 7.2; 8: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.5.27; 9: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, A.5.30; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27035:2016; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022; : ISO/IEC 27001:2022

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.2, information security objectives are the specific results that an organisation intends to achieve with its information security management system (ISMS). The standard specifies that information security objectives must fulfil the following criteria:

• They must be communicated appropriately (A): The organisation must ensure that the relevant internal and external parties are informed about the information security objectives and their roles and responsibilities in achieving them. This can help to create awareness, commitment, and accountability for information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
• They must be available as documented information (B): The organisation must maintain and retain documented information on the information security objectives, including their scope, level, indicators, and time frame. This can help to provide evidence, traceability, and consistency for information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
• They must be consistent with the IS Policy (G): The organisation must ensure that the information security objectives are aligned with the information security policy, which is the top-level statement of the organisation’s intentions and direction for information security. This can help to support the strategic objectives and the context of the organisation. This criterion is related to clause 5.2 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.
• They must be achievable (H): The organisation must ensure that the information security objectives are realistic and attainable, considering the available resources, capabilities, and constraints. This can help to avoid setting unrealistic or unfeasible expectations and to monitor and measure the progress and performance of information security. This criterion is related to clause 6.2.1 of ISO/IEC 27001:2022.

References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements1
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor2
• ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - PECB3
• ISO 27001:2022 certified ISMS lead auditor - Jisc4
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Transition Training Course5
• ISO 27001 - Information Security Lead Auditor Course - PwC Training Academy6

The use of probability theory in the sample selection process indicates that "statistical sampling" was used. Statistical sampling allows auditors to make inferences about the population based on the properties of the sample, relying on the principles of probability to select representative elements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

It is acceptable and often necessary for auditors to test technical controls such as firewalls to validate the operation and effectiveness of these processes during an ISMS audit. This hands-on testing provides concrete, technical evidence of the security measures' performance.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, Clause A.13 (Communications security), ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

No, copies of files are not generally kept as audit records unless specifically required and agreed upon in the audit plan. Audit records typically include notes and observations made by auditors, not copies of the auditee's files, unless these are essential and explicitly allowed by the auditee.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a framework that describes the key elements of an effective software process. It defines five levels of maturity for software development organizations, from initial to optimized. The CMM helps organizations to assess their current level of process capability and identify the areas for improvement1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor - IECB

The four controls from the list that are related to PHYSICAL aspects of the ISMS are:

•Access to and from the loading bay

•How power and data cables enter the building

•The operation of the site CCTV and door control systems

•The organisation’s arrangements for maintaining equipment

These controls are derived from the ISO 27001 Annex A, which provides a comprehensive list of information security controls that can be applied to an ISMS1. The other controls in the list are more related to ORGANIZATIONAL, LEGAL, or HUMAN aspects of the ISMS, which are also important, but not the focus of this question.

According to the ISMS Auditing Guideline2, the auditor in training should review the PHYSICAL controls by:

•Checking the SoA to identify the applicable controls and their implementation status

•Interviewing the relevant staff and management to verify their understanding and involvement in the controls

•Observing the physical and environmental conditions to confirm the existence and effectiveness of the controls

•Examining the relevant documents and records to validate the compliance and performance of the controls

I hope this helps you prepare for the exam. ????

References: 1: What Are ISO 27001 Controls? A Guide to Annex A | Secureframe; 2: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000

Based on the provided scenario, the auditors’ request for documentary evidence regarding the monitoring process of outsourced operations indicates that the auditors demonstrated professional skepticism. This is because professional skepticism involves a critical assessment of audit evidence and includes a questioning mind and a careful evaluation of the information provided by the auditee123.

Professional skepticism is an essential part of the auditing process, especially in the context of ISO/IEC 27001, which requires auditors to systematically examine an organization’s information security risks, including the management of outsourced processes4. The auditors’ request for evidence suggests that they were not satisfied with verbal assurances alone and sought to verify that SendPay had a formal, documented process for monitoring outsourced activities, which is a requirement for maintaining an effective Information Security Management System (ISMS)5.

Therefore, the correct answer is: A. The auditors demonstrated professional skepticism.

According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, which specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS), clause 4.2 requires an organization to determine the needs and expectations of interested parties that are relevant to its ISMS1. This includes identifying the legal, regulatory, contractual and other requirements that apply to its information security activities1. Therefore, collecting more evidence on what the service requirements of healthcare monitoring are may not be relevant to verifying the information security incident management process, as it is not directly related to the audit objective or criteria. This option will not be in the audit trail.

Jack collected mathematical evidence when he identified nonconformities by comparing the number of purchased invoices for software licenses with the software inventory. This type of evidence involves numerical, quantifiable data that highlights discrepancies and supports findings of compliance or non-compliance.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Standard, general guidelines on auditing

Leadership and commitment is a key requirement of ISO/IEC 27001:2022, as it establishes the top management’s role and responsibility in establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving the ISMS. Without assessing this aspect, the audit team cannot conclude that the ISMS is effective and conforms to the standard. Therefore, the audit team leader should advise the auditee and audit client that it is not possible to make a positive recommendation at this point, and explain the reason and the implications. The audit team leader should also consult with the certification body and the audit programme manager on the next steps, such as extending the audit duration, conducting a follow-up audit, or issuing a conditional certification, depending on the certification body’s policy and the audit client’s agreement. References: =

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 5, Leadership
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19, Audit Process
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 22, Audit Report
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 23, Audit Conclusion and Recommendation

The correct sequence of activities is:

• Establish the management system
• Plan the audit programme
• Conduct internal audits
• Hold a Management Review
• Engage a Certification Body for stage 1 and stage 2 audits
• Complete any corrective actions

Comprehensive but Short Explanation: = According to the PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, the steps for achieving certification are as follows1:

• Establish the management system: This involves defining the scope, objectives, policies, procedures, and controls of the ISMS, as well as ensuring the availability of resources and top management commitment.
• Plan the audit programme: This involves defining the audit objectives, criteria, scope, frequency, methods, and responsibilities for conducting internal audits of the ISMS.
• Conduct internal audits: This involves verifying the conformity and effectiveness of the ISMS, as well as identifying any nonconformities or opportunities for improvement.
• Hold a Management Review: This involves reviewing the performance and suitability of the ISMS, as well as deciding on any changes or actions needed to improve it.
• Engage a Certification Body for stage 1 and stage 2 audits: This involves selecting a reputable and accredited certification body to conduct an external audit of the ISMS, consisting of two stages: a documentation review and an on-site assessment.
• Complete any corrective actions: This involves addressing any nonconformities or findings identified by the certification body, and providing evidence of their implementation and effectiveness.

References: = 1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 25-26.

In the context of ISO/IEC 27001, the approval of the risk assessment and the acceptance of the remaining risk levels after treatment are typically responsibilities of the top management. This is because top management is accountable for the information security management system and its outcomes, and they have the authority to accept risks on behalf of the organization12. References: = The information provided is based on the standard practices of ISO/IEC 27001 risk assessment and treatment processes, which emphasize the role of top management in the approval and acceptance of risks

According to ISO/IEC 27000:2018, which provides an overview and vocabulary of information security management systems, an information security event is an identified occurrence of a system, service or network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, or a previously unknown situation that may be security relevant1. An information security incident is a single or a series of unwanted or unexpected information security events that have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security1. Therefore, based on this definition, three examples of information security incidents are:

• A contractor who has not been paid deletes top management ICT accounts: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of access, data, or functionality for the top management.
• An unhappy employee changes payroll records without permission: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in financial fraud, legal liability, or reputational damage for the organization.
• The organisation’s marketing data is copied by hackers and sold to a competitor: This is an example of an unwanted or unexpected information security event that has a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it may result in loss of confidentiality, competitive advantage, or customer trust for the organization.

The other options are not examples of information security incidents, but rather information security events that may or may not lead to incidents depending on their impact and severity. For example:

• The organisation’s malware protection software prevents a virus: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, as it is prevented by the malware protection software.
• A hard drive is used after its recommended replacement date: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it fails or causes other problems.
• The organisation receives a phishing email: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a network state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless it is opened or responded to by the recipient.
• An employee fails to clear their desk at the end of their shift: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a service state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the desk contains sensitive or confidential information that is accessed by unauthorized persons.
• The organisation fails a third-party penetration test: This is an example of an identified occurrence of a system state indicating a possible breach of information security policy or failure of safeguards, but it does not have a significant probability of compromising business operations and threatening information security, unless the penetration test reveals serious vulnerabilities that are exploited by malicious actors.

References: ISO/IEC 27000:2018 - Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Overview and vocabulary

The audit described in the last paragraph of scenario 9 is a surveillance audit. This type of audit is conducted periodically to ensure that the certified ISMS continues to fulfill the requirements of the standard after the initial certification.

The best action to take in this scenario is to determine whether any additional effective arrangements are in place to verify individual access to secure areas, such as CCTV. This action is consistent with the audit principle of evidence-based approach, which requires the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions1. By verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls, the auditor can assess the extent and impact of the nonconformity observed, and determine the appropriate audit finding and recommendation.

The other options are not the best actions to take in this scenario, because they are either premature or inappropriate. For example:

•Option A is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor’s role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. A large sign in reception may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.

•Option C is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.1 ‘security perimeters’ is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.

•Option D is premature, because it assumes that the control A.7.6 ‘working in secure areas’ is not adequately implemented, without verifying the existence and effectiveness of other security controls that may compensate for the observed nonconformity. The auditor should not jump to conclusions based on a single observation, but rather gather sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to support the audit finding3.

•Option E is inappropriate, because it is not related to the observed nonconformity, which is about the access control to secure areas, not the information security requirements agreed upon with the supplier. The auditor should not raise a nonconformity based on irrelevant or incorrect audit criteria4.

•Option F is inappropriate, because it is not the auditor’s role to suggest specific solutions or improvements to the auditee, but rather to report the audit findings and recommendations based on the audit criteria and objectives2. Requiring contractors to be accompanied at all times when accessing secure facilities may not be an effective or feasible solution to address the issue of tailgating, and it may not reflect the root cause of the problem.

References: 1: ISO 19011:2018, 5.2; 2: ISO 19011:2018, 6.6; 3: ISO 19011:2018, 6.2; 4: ISO 19011:2018, 6.3; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018; : ISO 19011:2018

This statement encapsulates the relationship between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets within the context of information security. Threats are potential causes of an unwanted incident, which may result in harm to a system or organization. Vulnerabilities are weaknesses that can be exploited by threats to cause harm. Assets are valuable resources to an organization that need protection. Therefore, when threats exploit vulnerabilities, they can damage or destroy assets. References: = The explanation is based on the foundational concepts of information security as outlined in ISO/IEC 27001, which includes understanding the interplay between threats, vulnerabilities, and assets as part of an information security management system (ISMS)

The stages of information are creation, distribution, use, maintenance, and disposition. These are the phases that information goes through during its lifecycle, from the moment it is generated to the moment it is destroyed or archived. Each stage of information has different security requirements and risks, and should be managed accordingly. Creation, evolution, maintenance, use, and disposition are not the correct stages of information, as evolution is not a distinct stage, but a process that can occur in any stage. Creation, use, disposition, maintenance, and evolution are not the correct stages of information, as they are not in the right order. Creation, distribution, maintenance, disposition, and use are not the correct stages of information, as they are not in the right order. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 32. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 12.

The mail sent by the CEO giving his views on the status of the company and the company’s future strategy and the CEO’s vision and the employee’s part in it should be classified as internal mail. Internal mail is a type of classification that indicates that the information is intended for internal use only, and should not be disclosed to external parties without authorization. The mail sent by the CEO contains information that is relevant and important for the employees of the company, but may not be suitable for public disclosure, as it may contain sensitive or confidential information about the company’s performance, goals, or plans. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 34. : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 37. : [ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB], page 14.

The word that best completes the sentence is “demonstrate”. According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Clause 7.5, the organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the performance of the processes and the conformity of the products and services with the requirements1. The purpose of retaining documented information is to demonstrate conformity with the requirements of the management system standard, not to maintain, audit, or certify it. References: 1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, Clause 7.5

The main purpose of a Stage 1 third-party audit is to determine readiness for a Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit is a preliminary assessment that evaluates the organization’s ISMS documentation, scope, context, and objectives, and identifies any major gaps or nonconformities that need to be addressed before the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not introduce the audit team to the client, as this is done during the audit planning phase. A Stage 1 audit does not check for legal compliance by the organization, as this is done during the Stage 2 audit. A Stage 1 audit does not prepare an independent audit report, as this is done after the Stage 2 audit. References: : CQI & IRCA ISO 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Course Handbook, page 70. : ISO/IEC 27001 LEAD AUDITOR - PECB, page 23.

The correct order of the stages is:

• Prepare the audit checklist
• Gather objective evidence
• Review audit evidence
• Document findings

• Audit preparation: This stage involves defining the audit objectives, scope, criteria, and plan. The auditor also prepares the audit checklist, which is a list of questions or topics that will be covered during the audit. The audit checklist helps the auditor to ensure that all relevant aspects of the ISMS are addressed and that the audit evidence is collected in a systematic and consistent manner12.
• Audit execution: This stage involves conducting the audit activities, such as opening meeting, interviews, observations, document review, and closing meeting. The auditor gathers objective evidence, which is any information that supports the audit findings and conclusions. Objective evidence can be qualitative or quantitative, and can be obtained from various sources, such as records, statements, physical objects, or observations123.
• Audit reporting: This stage involves reviewing the audit evidence, evaluating the audit findings, and documenting the audit results. The auditor reviews the audit evidence to determine whether it is sufficient, reliable, and relevant to support the audit findings. The auditor evaluates the audit findings to determine the degree of conformity or nonconformity of the ISMS with the audit criteria. The auditor documents the audit results in an audit report, which is a formal record of the audit process and outcomes. The audit report typically includes the following elements123:
• Audit follow-up: This stage involves verifying the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the auditee to address the audit findings. The auditor monitors the progress and completion of the corrective actions, and evaluates their impact on the ISMS performance and conformity. The auditor may conduct a follow-up audit to verify the corrective actions on-site, or may rely on other methods, such as document review, remote interviews, or self-assessment by the auditee. The auditor documents the follow-up results and updates the audit report accordingly123.

References:

• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 19-25
• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems
• The ISO 27001 audit process | ISMS.online

Yes, this action is acceptable. The internal audits being outsourced ensure independence and objectivity and allow the audit function to serve its advisory role effectively, in line with ISO/IEC 27001 requirements. The independence enhances the credibility and reliability of the audit results.

This option is appropriate for inclusion in the closing meeting agenda, as it is a requirement of the ISO 19011 standard, which provides guidelines for auditing management systems, including ISMS12. The standard states that the audit team leader should advise the auditee of any situations encountered during the audit that may decrease the confidence that can be placed in the audit conclusions, such as limitations in the audit scope, access, or sampling3. The standard also states that the audit report should include a statement that the audit is based on a sample of the information available at the time of the audit, and that the audit does not provide absolute assurance of the conformity or effectiveness of the audited management system4. Therefore, the audit team leader should include a disclaimer in the closing meeting agenda to inform the auditee of the nature and limitations of the audit, and to avoid any misunderstandings or false expectations. The other options are not appropriate for inclusion in the closing meeting agenda, as they are either irrelevant, incorrect, or incomplete. For example:

•A detailed explanation of the certification body’s complaints process is not relevant for the closing meeting agenda, as it is not related to the audit findings or conclusions. The certification body’s complaints process should be communicated to the auditee before the audit, as part of the audit agreement or contract5.

•An explanation of the audit plan and its purpose is not correct for the closing meeting agenda, as it should have been done at the opening meeting or before the audit. The audit plan is a document that describes the scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology of the audit, as well as the audit schedule, the audit team, the audit locations, and the audit deliverables . The audit plan should be communicated and agreed with the auditee in advance, and any changes or deviations should be notified during the audit.

•Names of auditees associated with nonconformities are not complete for the closing meeting agenda, as they do not provide the details or the evidence of the nonconformities. The audit team leader should present the audit findings, which include the description, the audit criteria, and the audit evidence of each nonconformity, as well as the audit conclusions and the audit recommendation . The audit team leader should also avoid naming or blaming individuals, and focus on the processes and the system.

References: = 1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor, page 222: ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 13: ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.94: ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 7.5.25: ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015 Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems — Part 1: Requirements, clause 9.8. : ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.1. : ISO/IEC 27007:2011 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing, clause 6.2.1. : ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.2. : ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.10. : ISO/IEC 27007:2011 Information technology — Security techniques — Guidelines for information security management systems auditing, clause 6.3.3.

According to ISO 19011:2018, clause 5.3, the person responsible for managing the audit programme should determine the resources necessary for the audit programme, such as the audit team members, the budget, the time, the tools, etc. The audit resources should be sufficient and appropriate to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the audit programme and the audit results. The audit resources include the following elements12:

• Essential resources: These are the resources that are required to conduct the audit programme and the individual audits, such as the audit documents, the audit methods, the audit tools, the audit schedule, the audit budget, etc. The essential resources should be identified and allocated based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the availability and cooperation of the auditee. The essential resources should also be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflect any changes or deviations in the audit programme or the individual audits.
• Competent personnel: These are the audit team members who have the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to conduct the audit effectively and efficiently, and to provide credible and reliable audit results and recommendations. The competent personnel should include the audit team leader, the auditors, and any technical experts or observers who support the audit team. The competent personnel should be selected and appointed based on the audit objectives, scope, and criteria, and the specific competence requirements for the audit programme and the individual audits. The competent personnel should also be independent and impartial, and avoid any conflicts of interest or self-interest that may affect the audit results or the audit decisions.

References:

• ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 5.3
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 19

• D. This statement is true because the audit team leader should communicate the audit plan to the audit client and the auditee, and obtain their approval before conducting the audit12. The audit plan should include the audit objectives, scope, criteria, methods, schedule, resources, roles and responsibilities, and other relevant information12. The audit plan should also be reviewed and updated as necessary during the audit process, and any changes should be agreed upon by the audit team leader, the audit client, and the auditee12. The purpose of reviewing and agreeing on the audit plan is to ensure that the audit is conducted in an efficient and effective manner, and that the audit expectations and requirements are clear and consistent among all parties involved.

References:

1: PECB Candidate Handbook - ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 23 2: ISO 19011:2018 - Guidelines for auditing management systems, clause 6.4.2

The conclusion in the audit report that is not required by the certification body when deciding to grant certification is that the organisation fully complies with all legal and other requirements applicable to the ISMS. This is because the certification body does not have the authority or the responsibility to verify the legal compliance of the organisation, as this is outside the scope of ISO/IEC 27001:2022. The certification body only evaluates the conformity of the organisation’s ISMS with the requirements of the standard, which include the establishment of a process to identify and evaluate the legal and other requirements that are relevant to the ISMS. The organisation is responsible for ensuring its own legal compliance and for providing evidence of such compliance to the certification body if requested. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 6.1.3; ISO/IEC 27006:2022, clause 9.2.2.4; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 29.

The benefits of implementing an ISMS primarily result from a reduction in information security risks. E. The purpose of an ISMS is to apply a risk management process for preserving information security. Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation: According to the ISO 27001 standard, the benefits of implementing an ISMS include the following1:

• Assuring customers and other stakeholders of the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information
• Enhancing the ability to respond to information security incidents and minimize their impacts
• Improving the governance and management of information security
• Reducing the costs and losses associated with information security breaches
• Increasing the competitiveness and reputation of the organization
• Complying with legal, regulatory and contractual obligations The purpose of an ISMS is to provide a systematic approach to managing information security risks, based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle1. The ISMS enables the organization to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve its information security performance, in alignment with its business objectives and the needs and expectations of interested parties1. The ISMS consists of the following elements1:
• The information security policy and objectives
• The scope and boundaries of the ISMS
• The processes and procedures for information security risk assessment and treatment
• The resources and competencies for information security
• The roles and responsibilities for information security
• The performance evaluation and improvement of the ISMS
• The internal and external communication and awareness of the ISMS References:
• ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, clauses 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
• PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, pages 9-11
• ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Information Security Management Standards
• 4 Key Benefits of ISO 27001 Implementation | ISMS.online
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022
• An Introduction to the ISO 27001 ISMS | Secureframe

• A: Auditors approved for conducting onsite audits do require additional training for virtual audits to ensure they are competent in using the technology and tools required for conducting audits remotely12.
• E: The number of days assigned to a third-party audit is not determined by the auditee’s availability, but rather by factors such as the size and complexity of the organization, the scope of the audit, and the requirements of the certification body34.

References: The answers are verified based on the content and objectives of the ISMS ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor course, as well as the guidelines provided in the reference materials and documents related to the course.

The PDCA cycle is a four-step method for managing and improving processes. The steps are Plan, Do, Check, and Act. In the Plan phase, the objectives and scope of the process are defined, and the resources and activities are planned. In the Do phase, the process is implemented on a test basis, and the results are recorded and analyzed1. References: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) | CQI | IRCA

Yes, the audit team should obtain approval from Lawsy before photocopying documents. This is a best practice to ensure that the auditee agrees to the duplication of documents, which might contain sensitive or confidential information. Although auditors can observe and note down information, copying documents typically requires explicit permission to maintain trust and ensure compliance with confidentiality agreements.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

Third-party accredited certification of information security management systems to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 provides assurance to organisations and interested parties that the organisation’s management system is maintained and effective, meaning that it conforms to the requirements of the standard, meets the organisation’s objectives and policies, and addresses the risks and opportunities related to information security. Third-party accredited certification also demonstrates that the organisation’s management system adopted a systematic approach to information security, meaning that it follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, applies the risk-based thinking principle, and considers the context and needs of the organisation and its stakeholders

An audit finding is the result of the evaluation of the collected audit evidence against audit criteria.

Internal audits and external audits are integral components of the certification cycle, ensuring regular monitoring of the management system. Internal audits help organizations prepare for external audits by identifying and addressing potential nonconformities, while external audits validate the compliance of the management system with ISO/IEC 27001 standards.

References: PECB ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Course Material; ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clauses 9.2 (Internal audit) and 9.3 (Management review)

The purpose of including access rights in an information management system to ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is to provide, review, modify and remove these permissions in accordance with the organisation’s policy and rules for access control. 

Access rights are the permissions granted to users or groups of users to access, use, modify, or delete information assets. Access rights should be aligned with the organisation’s access control policy, which defines the objectives, principles, roles, and responsibilities for managing access to information systems. Access rights should also follow the organisation’s rules for access control, which specify the criteria, procedures, and controls for granting, reviewing, modifying, and revoking access rights. The purpose of including access rights in an information management system is to ensure that only authorised users can access information assets according to their business needs and roles, and to prevent unauthorised or inappropriate access that could compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information assets. References:

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A Control 5.181
• ISO/IEC 27002:2022 Control 5.182
• CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Training Course3

• Risk analysis is the process by which the nature of the risk is determined along with its probability and impact. Risk analysis involves estimating the likelihood and consequences of potential events or situations that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk analysis could use qualitative or quantitative methods, or a combination of both12.
• Risk management is the process by which a risk is controlled at all stages of its life cycle by means of the application of organisational policies, procedures and practices. Risk management involves establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring, and reviewing the risks that could affect the organization’s information security performance or compliance12. Risk management aims to ensure that risks are identified and treated in a timely and effective manner, and that opportunities for improvement are exploited12.
• Risk identification is the process by which a risk is recognised and described. Risk identification involves identifying and documenting the sources, causes, events, scenarios, and potential impacts of risks that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk identification could use various techniques, such as brainstorming, interviews, checklists, surveys, or historical data12.
• Risk evaluation is the process by which the impact and/or probability of a risk is compared against risk criteria to determine if it is tolerable. Risk evaluation involves comparing the results of risk analysis with predefined criteria that reflect the organization’s risk appetite, tolerance, or acceptance12. Risk evaluation could use various methods, such as ranking, scoring, or matrix12. Risk evaluation helps to prioritize and decide on the appropriate risk treatment options12.
• Risk mitigation is the process by which the impact and/or probability of a risk is reduced by means of the application of controls. Risk mitigation involves selecting and implementing measures that are designed to prevent, reduce, transfer, or accept risks that could affect the organization’s information security objectives or requirements12. Risk mitigation could include various types of controls, such as technical, organizational, legal, or physical12. Risk mitigation should be based on a cost-benefit analysis and a residual risk assessment12.
• Risk transfer is the process by which a risk is passed to a third party, for example through obtaining appropriate insurance. Risk transfer involves sharing or shifting some or all of the responsibility or liability for a risk to another party that has more capacity or capability to manage it12. Risk transfer could include various methods, such as contracts, agreements, partnerships, outsourcing, or insurance12. Risk transfer should not be used as a substitute for effective risk management within the organization12.

References :=

• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements
• ISO/IEC 27005:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security risk management

Detection risk refers to the risk that the auditor will not detect a material misstatement or significant issue within the organization's ISMS. In this case, the auditor's inability to identify Company A's insecure network architecture is a detection risk.

References: ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems

According to ISO 27001:2022 clause 4.1, the organisation shall determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcome(s) of its information security management system (ISMS)12

External issues are factors outside the organisation that it cannot control, but can influence or adapt to. They include political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors that may affect the organisation’s information security objectives, risks, and opportunities12

Internal issues are factors within the organisation that it can control or change. They include the organisation’s structure, culture, values, policies, objectives, strategies, capabilities, resources, processes, activities, relationships, and performance that may affect the organisation’s information security management system12

Therefore, the following issues are considered ‘internal’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

• Poor levels of staff competence as a result of cuts in training expenditure: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of developing and maintaining the competence of its personnel involved in the ISMS. The organisation can control or change its training expenditure and its impact on staff competence12
• Poor morale as a result of staff holidays being reduced: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s culture, value, and relationship with its employees. The organisation can control or change its staff holiday policy and its impact on staff morale12
• Increased absenteeism as a result of poor management: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s performance, structure, and accountability of its management. The organisation can control or change its management practices and its impact on staff absenteeism12
• A fall in productivity linked to outdated production equipment: This is an internal issue because it relates to the organisation’s capability, resource, and process of ensuring the availability and suitability of its production equipment. The organisation can control or change its equipment maintenance and upgrade and its impact on productivity12

The following issues are considered ‘external’ in the context of a management system to ISO 27001:2022:

• Higher labour costs as a result of an aging population: This is an external issue because it relates to the social and demographic factor that affects the availability and cost of labour in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the aging population, but can influence or adapt to its impact on labour costs12
• A rise in interest rates in response to high inflation: This is an external issue because it relates to the economic and monetary factor that affects the cost and availability of capital in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the interest rates or inflation, but can influence or adapt to its impact on capital costs12
• A reduction in grants as a result of a change in government policy: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and conditions of public funding for the organisation. The organisation cannot control or change the government policy, but can influence or adapt to its impact on grants12
• Inability to source raw materials due to government sanctions: This is an external issue because it relates to the political and legal factor that affects the availability and cost of raw materials in the market. The organisation cannot control or change the government sanctions, but can influence or adapt to its impact on raw materials12

References:

1: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor (Information Security Management Systems) Course by CQI and IRCA Certified Training 1 2: ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Training Course by PECB 2

A sampling plan for the audit is a method of selecting a representative subset of the audit evidence to evaluate the conformity of the ISMS1. The advantages of using a sampling plan are:

• It reduces the audit duration by focusing on the most relevant and significant aspects of the ISMS2.
• It gives confidence in the audit results by ensuring that the sample is sufficient, reliable, and unbiased3.

References: 1: ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000, page 9; 2: Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; 3: A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit, Step 4; : ISMS Auditing Guideline - ISO27000; : Internal Audit Plan – ISO Templates and Documents Download; : A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting an ISO 27001 Internal Audit

Information security is a matter of building and maintaining trust. Trust is the confidence that information and information processing facilities are protected from unauthorized or malicious actions that could compromise their confidentiality, integrity or availability. Trust is essential for establishing and maintaining relationships with customers, partners, suppliers, employees and other stakeholders who rely on the organization’s information and services. Trust is also a key factor for achieving compliance with legal, regulatory and contractual obligations, as well as meeting the organization’s own information security objectives and policies. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines information security as “preservation of confidentiality, integrity and availability of information” (see clause 3.28) and states that “the purpose of an information security management system is to provide a framework for managing activities that influence the trustworthiness of information” (see Introduction). References: CQI & IRCA Certified ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Lead Auditor Training Course, ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Requirements, What is Trust?

The words that best complete the sentence are assess and recommendation. The sentence would read as follows:

“An audit plan is a statement of the intent of the audit team to assess all areas of the company with a view to determining a recommendation for certification approval.”

Explanation: According to the web search results from my predefined tool, a third-party audit plan is a document that describes the scope, objectives, criteria, and methodology of an external audit conducted by an independent certification body to verify the conformity of an organization’s ISMS with the ISO 27001 standard12. The audit plan also includes the audit schedule, the audit team, the audit locations, and the audit deliverables23. One of the main deliverables of a third-party audit is the audit report, which summarizes the audit findings, the audit conclusions, and the audit recommendation34. The audit recommendation is the opinion of the audit team on whether the organization’s ISMS meets the certification requirements and whether the certification should be granted, maintained, suspended, or withdrawn45.

Therefore, the purpose of the audit plan is to state the intention of the audit team to assess all areas of the company, meaning to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the ISMS, and to determine a recommendation for certification approval, meaning to provide a judgment on the certification status of the ISMS. The other words in the options, such as verdict, permit, report, inspect, and question, do not accurately reflect the meaning of the audit plan. A verdict is a formal decision made by a judge or a jury, not by an audit team. A permit is a legal authorization to do something, not a certification of conformity. A report is a document that presents the audit results, not the audit intention. An inspection is a visual examination of something, not a comprehensive assessment of an ISMS. A question is a request for information, not a determination of a recommendation.

The auditee is required to submit action plans that include detailed information on how every corrective action will be implemented. General statements are not sufficient; the action plans must specify the corrective actions in detail to ensure that the root causes of the nonconformities are addressed effectively.

References: ISO/IEC 27001:2013, Clause 10.1 (General) and ISO 19011:2018, Guidelines for auditing management systems.

The correct statement which defines the content of the scope of the ISMS is that the ISMS scope should take any information security issues that have occurred and any interested parties’ requirements into consideration. According to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, the scope of the ISMS should be determined by considering the internal and external issues, the requirements and expectations of interested parties, the interfaces and dependencies between the organisation and other parties, and the information security risks. The scope of the ISMS should also be aligned with the strategic direction of the organisation and be appropriate to its purpose and context. The scope of the ISMS should not be limited by the government’s recommendation, nor exclude external service providers, nor be based on a single department or function, unless these are justified by the risk assessment and the needs and expectations of interested parties. References: = ISO/IEC 27001:2022, clause 4.3; PECB Candidate Handbook ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, page 15; ISO 27001 scope statement | How to set the scope of your ISMS - Advisera.