Deal of The Day! 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 7 Question 50 Discussion

Posted by Donte on Oct 21, 2024 at 08:13 PM

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:

According to scenario 8, the audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded that it would resolve the detected nonconformities. Is this acceptable?

Suggested Answer: A

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.


Get Premium ISO-IEC-27001-Lead-Auditor Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test
34 comments · newest first
FL
Fletcher 10 months ago
Not sure if just submitting a plan is enough to fix those issues.
CA
Carmen 11 months ago
Totally agree, the audit team needs to ensure the action plan is effective!
DA
Daniela 11 months ago
Wait, they got an unfavorable recommendation even after submitting an action plan?
AR
Ariel 11 months ago
They really should have a proper labeling procedure in place!
TA
Tayna 11 months ago
EsBank has been around since 2010.
EL
Elina 12 months ago
I recall that the root causes of nonconformities are crucial to address, so I think the auditee should definitely be involved in that verification process.
SL
Slyvia 12 months ago
I feel like the audit team should have more responsibility in verifying the action plan's effectiveness, especially since they found multiple nonconformities.
RE
Remona 12 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the auditee should really verify the effectiveness of the action plan before the audit team can accept it.
ST
Stefan 1 year ago
I remember that in similar practice questions, the audit team had to ensure the action plan was comprehensive enough to address all nonconformities.
VI
Virgina 1 year ago
I feel pretty confident about this one. The scenario clearly states the audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded it would resolve the nonconformities. So option A seems like the right answer - the audit team must evaluate the plan and verify it's appropriate for correcting the issues.
LO
Lorita 1 year ago
Based on the details provided, I think option C is the correct answer. The audit team can evaluate the action plan, but the auditee (EsBank) should ultimately verify that the plan addresses the root causes and will effectively correct the nonconformities. The audit team's conclusion alone doesn't seem sufficient.
ED
Eden 1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. The scenario says the audit team evaluated the action plan and concluded it would resolve the nonconformities, but then it also says EsBank received an unfavorable recommendation for certification. I'm not sure how to reconcile those two pieces of information.
JO
Jodi 1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the audit process. I think the key is understanding the role of the audit team in evaluating the action plan. The scenario states they concluded the action plan would resolve the nonconformities, so I'm leaning towards option A.
IE
Iesha 2 years ago
The auditee should definitely verify the action plan before submitting it. Can't just rely on the audit team to do all the heavy lifting.
JO
Johana 2 years ago
↳ replying to Iesha
User 4: Absolutely, they can't just rely on the audit team to do all the work.
ME
Merlyn 2 years ago
↳ replying to Iesha
User 3: It's important for EsBank to be proactive in verifying their own action plan.
PO
Pok 2 years ago
↳ replying to Iesha
User 2: I agree, they need to take responsibility for ensuring the plan will correct the nonconformities.
JO
Jose 2 years ago
↳ replying to Iesha
User 1: Yes, the auditee should definitely verify the action plan before submitting it.
AM
Amie 2 years ago
Haha, sounds like the auditors were trying to wrap things up quickly. Maybe they were eager to get to their coffee break!
NA
Nancey 2 years ago
↳ replying to Amie
User 4: It's important to thoroughly verify that the action plan will fix the issues before giving a recommendation for certification.
SK
Skye 2 years ago
↳ replying to Amie
User 3: Maybe the auditors were just trying to meet their deadline.
LO
Lonna 2 years ago
↳ replying to Amie
User 2: I agree, they should have made sure the action plan actually addressed the nonconformities.
MA
Mari 2 years ago
↳ replying to Amie
User 1: Yeah, it seems like they rushed through the evaluation of the action plan.
EL
Eloisa 2 years ago
I disagree. The audit team should not have just accepted the action plan without verifying if it resolves the nonconformities. That's a bit lazy on their part.
GA
Galen 2 years ago
↳ replying to Eloisa
User 4: It's important to thoroughly check if the nonconformities are truly resolved.
HA
Han 2 years ago
↳ replying to Eloisa
User 3: Maybe EsBank should have provided more details in their action plan.
LA
Lashanda 2 years ago
↳ replying to Eloisa
User 2: Yeah, they should have made sure it actually fixed the issues.
LA
Lauran 2 years ago
↳ replying to Eloisa
User 1: I think the audit team should have verified if the action plan resolves the nonconformities.
VA
Vanna 2 years ago
I agree with you, Charisse. It's important for EsBank to address the root causes of the nonconformities.
LE
Lera 2 years ago
The action plan seems adequate, but I'm not sure if it addresses the root causes. The audit team should have asked for more details to ensure the plan is truly effective.
JE
Jenelle 2 years ago
↳ replying to Lera
User 3: It's important for the auditee to verify that the action plan truly corrects the issues and eliminates the root causes.
GL
Gladys 2 years ago
↳ replying to Lera
Yes, they should have made sure the plan addresses the root causes of the nonconformities.
FR
Freeman 2 years ago
↳ replying to Lera
I think the audit team should have asked for more details on the action plan.
CH
Charisse 2 years ago
I think the audit team should evaluate the action plan to ensure it resolves the nonconformities.
0/2000 characters

Save Cancel