PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor ISO/IEC 27001 Lead Auditor Exam Practice Test

Scenario 9: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

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

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

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

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

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

According to Scenario 9, the auditor decided to conduct the extension audit during the surveillance audit. How do you define this situation?

Scenario 9: Techmanic is a Belgian company founded in 1995 and currently operating in Brussels. It provides IT consultancy, software design, and hardware/software services, including deployment and maintenance. The company serves sectors like public services, finance, telecom, energy, healthcare, and education. As a customer-centered company, it prioritizes strong client relationships and leading security practices.

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

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

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

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

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

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

Scenario 8: Tess

a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

After analyzing the audit conclusions, Company X accepted the risk related to a detected nonconformity and decided not to take corrective action. However, their decision was not documented. Is this acceptable?

Scenario 8: Tess

a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Who is primarily responsible for the preparation and content of the audit report?

Scenario 8: Tess

a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Was the closing meeting conducted accordingly?

Scenario 8: Tess

a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Tessa was advised to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for Clastus's certification audit. Is this recommended?

Scenario 8: Tess

a. Malik, and Michael are an audit team of independent and qualified experts in the field of security, compliance, and business planning and strategies. They are assigned to conduct a certification audit in Clastus, a large web design company. They have previously shown excellent work ethics, including impartiality and objectiveness, while conducting audits. This time, Clastus is positive that they will be one step ahead if they get certified against ISO/IEC 27001.

Tessa, the audit team leader, has expertise in auditing and a very successful background in IT-related issues, compliance, and governance. Malik has an organizational planning and risk management background. His expertise relies on the level of synthesis and analysis of an organization's security controls and its risk tolerance in accurately characterizing the risk level within an organization On the other hand, Michael is an expert in the practical security of controls assessment by following rigorous standardized programs.

After performing the required auditing activities, Tessa initiated an audit team meeting They analyzed one of Michael s findings to decide on the issue objectively and accurately. The issue Michael had encountered was a minor nonconformity in the organization's daily operations, which he believed was caused by one of the organization's IT technicians As such, Tessa met with the top management and told them who was responsible for the nonconformity after they inquired about the names of the persons responsible

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Tessa conducted the closing meeting on the last day of the audit. During this meeting, she presented the identified nonconformities to the Clastus management. However, Tessa received advice to avoid providing unnecessary evidence in the audit report for the Clastus certification audit, ensuring that the report remains concise and focused on the critical findings.

Based on the evidence examined, the audit team drafted the audit conclusions and decided that two areas of the organization must be audited before the certification can be granted. These decisions were later presented to the auditee, who did not accept the findings and proposed to provide additional information. Despite the auditee's comments, the auditors, having already decided on the certification recommendation, did not accept the additional information. The auditee's top management insisted that the audit conclusions did not represent reality, but the audit team remained firm in their decision.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

What must Tessa do regarding the presentation of nonconformities during the closing meeting?