New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

PECB ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Exam - Topic 2 Question 45 Discussion

Actual exam question for PECB's ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor exam
Question #: 45
Topic #: 2
[All ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Questions]

Scenario 8: EsBank provides banking and financial solutions to the Estonian banking sector since September 2010. The company has a network of 30 branches with over 100 ATMs across the country.

Operating in a highly regulated industry, EsBank must comply with many laws and regulations regarding the security and privacy of dat

a. They need to manage information security across their operations by implementing technical and nontechnical controls. EsBank decided to implement an ISMS based on ISO/IEC 27001 because it provided better security, more risk control, and compliance with key requirements of laws and regulations.

Nine months after the successful implementation of the ISMS, EsBank decided to pursue certification of their ISMS by an independent certification body against ISO/IEC 27001 .The certification audit included all of EsBank's systems, processes, and technologies.

The stage 1 and stage 2 audits were conducted jointly and several nonconformities were detected. The first nonconformity was related to EsBank's labeling of information. The company had an information classification scheme but there was no information labeling procedure. As a result, documents requiring the same level of protection would be labeled differently (sometimes as confidential, other times sensitive).

Considering that all the documents were also stored electronically, the nonconformity also impacted media handling. The audit team used sampling and concluded that 50 of 200 removable media stored sensitive information mistakenly classified as confidential. According to the information classification scheme, confidential information is allowed to be stored in removable media, whereas storing sensitive information is strictly prohibited. This marked the other nonconformity.

They drafted the nonconformity report and discussed the audit conclusions with EsBank's representatives, who agreed to submit an action plan for the detected nonconformities within two months.

EsBank accepted the audit team leader's proposed solution. They resolved the nonconformities by drafting a procedure for information labeling based on the classification scheme for both physical and electronic formats. The removable media procedure was also updated based on this procedure.

Two weeks after the audit completion, EsBank submitted a general action plan. There, they addressed the detected nonconformities and the corrective actions taken, but did not include any details on systems, controls, or operations impacted. The audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded that it would resolve the nonconformities. Yet, EsBank received an unfavorable recommendation for certification.

Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:

Which action illustrated in scenario 8 is unacceptable in an external audit?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

If an organization like OrgXY informs the certification body that it is not ready to conduct the surveillance audit as scheduled, the certification may be suspended. This is because the surveillance audit is a critical part of the ongoing certification maintenance, required to ensure continued compliance with the standard.


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Louvenia
3 months ago
ISO/IEC 27001 compliance is crucial for banks, no doubt!
upvoted 0 times
...
Aja
3 months ago
I think marking the labeling issue as minor is a bit off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Renay
3 months ago
Surprised they didn't have a labeling procedure in place!
upvoted 0 times
...
Eleonore
4 months ago
Agree, but combining stage 1 and 2 audits seems risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaleesa
4 months ago
EsBank has been around since 2010.
upvoted 0 times
...
Keneth
4 months ago
I feel like the audit process should be independent, so if they did both stages together, that could definitely be a red flag. I think option B is the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Coral
4 months ago
The labeling procedure being marked as a minor nonconformity feels off to me. I thought that was a significant issue, but maybe I misremembered the criteria for nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
4 months ago
I remember discussing how simultaneous audits could lead to confusion, so option B seems like a strong candidate for being unacceptable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lettie
5 months ago
I think the issue with the audit team leader suggesting a specific solution might be a problem, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the main issue here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fairy
5 months ago
Based on my understanding of ISO 27001 audits, the lack of an information labeling procedure seems like a pretty significant issue, not a minor one. Proper information classification and labeling are fundamental to an effective information security management system. I'd be surprised if that was considered a minor nonconformity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zoila
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused about the timeline here. Performing the stage 1 and stage 2 audits at the same time seems a bit unusual. Typically, there's a gap between the two stages to allow the organization to address any findings from the stage 1 audit. I'll need to think about how that might impact the audit process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Angelica
5 months ago
The part about the audit team leader suggesting a specific solution seems a bit concerning to me. I thought the auditor's role was to identify issues, not provide solutions. That could potentially introduce bias or influence the client's corrective actions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Breana
5 months ago
This seems like a tricky question. I'm not sure if I fully understand the implications of the different actions described. I'll need to carefully review the details of the scenario and the possible answers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Providencia
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options cover a range of topics, and I'm not entirely sure which ones the Scrum Master is responsible for addressing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleisha
9 months ago
Looks like EsBank needs to update their slogan to 'Where every document is a surprise!'
upvoted 0 times
...
Marshall
9 months ago
Submitting a vague action plan without any details? That's like trying to fix a leaky faucet with duct tape. Good luck with that certification, EsBank!
upvoted 0 times
Suzan
8 months ago
Submitting a vague plan might not cut it for certification.
upvoted 0 times
...
Benton
8 months ago
The audit team probably wanted to see more concrete changes in their operations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deandrea
8 months ago
Yeah, they should have provided more details on how they fixed the nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryann
8 months ago
That action plan seems like a band-aid solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Vicente
9 months ago
A minor nonconformity for no information labeling procedure? That's a pretty major oversight if you ask me. Somebody needs to get their priorities straight.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karima
9 months ago
Doing the stage 1 and stage 2 audits together? Sounds like a recipe for disaster. They're rushing things way too fast!
upvoted 0 times
Adolph
9 months ago
It's important to ensure everything is in order before seeking certification.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorothy
9 months ago
Yeah, they should have taken more time to properly address the nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beth
9 months ago
I agree, doing both audits at the same time seems risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dorethea
10 months ago
Woah, the audit team gave a specific solution? Isn't that a bit too hands-on? They should let the client figure it out, not spoon-feed them.
upvoted 0 times
Jerrod
9 months ago
It's important for the client to take ownership of resolving the nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merlyn
10 months ago
Yeah, they should let the client come up with their own action plan.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ligia
10 months ago
I agree, the audit team leader suggesting a solution seems a bit too involved.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jessenia
11 months ago
Definitely, having inconsistent labeling can lead to serious breaches.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andrew
11 months ago
I agree, that seems like a major issue in terms of data security.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jessenia
11 months ago
I think the lack of an information labeling procedure was marked as a minor nonconformity.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel