Most Recent Isaca CRISC Exam Dumps

The best measure of the impact of business interruptions caused by an IT service outage is the sustained financial loss. This is the amount of money that the enterprise loses due to the disruption of its normal operations, such as lost revenue, increased expenses, or reduced profits. Sustained financial loss reflects the extent and severity of the business interruption, and the effect on the enterprise's objectives and performance. Sustained financial loss also helps to determine the recovery objectives and priorities, and to justify the investment in risk mitigation and business continuity strategies.Reference:= Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2, page 691

The second line of defense is responsible for challenging the risk decision making of the first line of defense, which is the business process owners and managers. The second line of defense also provides oversight, guidance, and support to the first line of defense in implementing and maintaining effective risk management practices. The second line of defense includes functions such as risk management, compliance, quality assurance, and internal audit. Reference: = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.2: IT Risk Management Roles and Responsibilities, Page 14.

The best tool to enable risk-based decision making in support of a business continuity plan (BCP) is an impact analysis. An impact analysis is a process of identifying and evaluating the potential effects of an interruption or disruption of business operations on the organization's critical functions, processes, and resources. An impact analysis can help to determine the recovery priorities, objectives, and strategies for the BCP. Control analysis, root cause analysis, and threat analysis are other possible tools, but they are not as effective as an impact analysis.Reference:=ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 12; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 215.

The most likely cause for a risk practitioner to reassess risk scenarios is a change in the regulatory environment. A regulatory environment is the set of laws, rules, and standards that apply to an organization and its activities, such as data privacy, security, compliance, or governance. A change in the regulatory environment can occur due to various factors, such as new legislation, court rulings, enforcement actions, or industry trends. A change in the regulatory environment can affect the risk scenarios that the organization faces, as it may introduce new or modified risks, or alter the probability or impact of existing risks. For example, a new regulation may require the organization to implement additional or different controls, or to report or disclose more information, which may increase the cost, complexity, or vulnerability of the organization's processes and systems. A change in the regulatory environment may also affect the risk appetite, tolerance, and capacity of the organization, as it may impose different requirements or expectations for the organization's risk management performance and outcomes. Therefore, a risk practitioner should reassess the risk scenarios when there is a change in the regulatory environment, to ensure that the risk scenarios are accurate, complete, and relevant, and that the risk response strategies and plans are appropriate, effective, and compliant. The other options are not the most likely cause, although they may be related or influential to the risk scenarios. A change in the risk management policy is a change in the rules and guidelines that define how the organization manages its risks, such as the roles and responsibilities, the processes and procedures, the tools and techniques, or the reporting and communication. A change in the risk management policy can affect the risk scenarios, as it may change the way the organization identifies, analyzes, evaluates, and responds to the risks, but it does not directly create or modify the risks themselves. A major security incident is an event or situation that compromises the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the organization's information or systems, such as a data breach, a denial-of-service attack, or a ransomware infection. A major security incident can affect the risk scenarios, as it may indicate or reveal the existence or severity of the risks, or trigger or escalate the consequences of the risks, but it is not a cause, rather it is an effect of the risks. An increase in intrusion attempts is an increase in the frequency or intensity of the unauthorized or malicious attempts to access or exploit the organization's information or systems, such as phishing, malware, or brute-force attacks. An increase in intrusion attempts can affect the risk scenarios, as it may increase the likelihood or impact of the risks, or expose or exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the organization's processes and systems, but it is not a cause, rather it is a manifestation of the risks.Reference:=Risk Scenarios Toolkit - ISACA,How to Write Strong Risk Scenarios and Statements - ISACA,The Impact of Regulatory Change on Business - Deloitte

The best way to mitigate an identified risk scenario is to execute a risk response plan. A risk response plan is a document that describes the actions and resources that are needed to address the risk scenario. A risk response plan can include one or more of the following strategies: avoid, transfer, mitigate, accept, or exploit. By executing a risk response plan, the organization can reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the risk scenario, or take advantage of the opportunities that the risk scenario may present. The other options are not as effective as executing a risk response plan, as they are related to the awareness, assessment, or monitoring of the risk scenario, not the actual treatment of the risk scenario.Reference:= Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: IT Risk Response Options, page 133.