Download Financial.CISM.PracticeTest.2018-08-01.393q.vcex

Residual risk provides management with sufficient information to decide to the level of risk that an organization is willing to accept. Control risk is the risk that a control may not succeed in preventing an undesirable event. Risk exposure is the likelihood of an undesirable event occurring. Inherent risk is an important factor to be considered during the risk assessment.

Visibility of impact is the best measure since it manages risks to an organization in the timeliest manner. Likelihood of occurrence and incident frequency are not as relevant. Mitigating controls is not a determining factor on incident reporting.

Risk acceptance is one of the alternatives to be considered in the risk mitigation process. Assessment and evaluation are components of the risk analysis process. Risk acceptance is not a component of monitoring.

Risk should be reduced to a level that an organization is willing to accept. Reducing risk to a level too small to measure is impractical and is often cost-prohibitive. To tie risk to a specific rate of return ignores the qualitative aspects of risk that must also be considered. Depending on the risk preference of an organization, it may or may not choose to pursue risk mitigation to the point at which the benefit equals or exceeds the expense. Therefore, choice C is a more precise answer.

Risks are constantly changing. Choice D offers the best alternative because it takes into consideration a reasonable time frame and allows flexibility to address significant change. Conducting a risk assessment once a year is insufficient if important changes take place. Conducting a risk assessment every three-to-six months for critical processes may not be necessary, or it may not address important changes in a timely manner. It is not necessary for assessments to be performed by external parties.

A risk management program should minimize the amount of risk that cannot be otherwise eliminated or transferred; this is the residual risk to the organization. Quantifying overall risk is important but not as critical as the end result. Eliminating inherent risk is virtually impossible. Maximizing the sum of all ALEs is actually the opposite of what is desirable.

A permanent decline in customer confidence does not lend itself well to measurement by quantitative techniques. Qualitative techniques are more effective in evaluating things such as customer loyalty and goodwill. Theft of software, power outages and temporary loss of e-mail can be quantified into monetary amounts easier than can be assessed with quantitative techniques.

Network address translation is helpful by having internal addresses that are nonroutable. Background checks of temporary employees are more likely to prevent an attack launched from within the enterprise. Static IP addressing does little to prevent an attack. Writing all computer logs to removable media does not help in preventing an attack.

The value of the server should be based on its cost of replacement. The original cost may be significantly different from the current cost and, therefore, not as relevant. The value of the software is not at issue because it can be restored from backup media. The ALE for all risks related to the server does not represent the server's value.

A business impact analysis (BIA) is the best tool for calculating the priority of restoration for applications. It is not used to determine total cost of ownership, annualized loss expectancy (ALE) or residual risk to the organization.