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-42001-Lead-Auditor Exam - Topic 4 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for PECB's ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor exam
Question #: 2
Topic #: 4
[All ISO-IEC-42001-Lead-Auditor Questions]

[Managing an ISO/IEC 42001 Audit Program]

Scenario 9:

Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn.Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AIsystems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. Indoing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems' capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently andethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certificationaudit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.

The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, andprocedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation

of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation,ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.

After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during thecertification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a

key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk

management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.

Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC 42001.

Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despitebeing initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partnerwith a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.

To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation forsubmission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence toISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current validcertification registration.

A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The

purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team

concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.

During an AIMS audit at a cybersecurity company, the team found a major nonconformity --- ineffective access controls for sensitive data.

Given this situation, what is the appropriate next step?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Vivan
2 months ago
Revoking certification without a look seems extreme, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucina
2 months ago
I think a follow-up audit is definitely needed after finding major nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kattie
2 months ago
Wait, they transferred their certification? That seems risky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
3 months ago
Securisai got certified against ISO/IEC 42001 after fixing nonconformities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Taryn
3 months ago
Totally agree, they did the right thing by switching certification bodies!
upvoted 0 times
...
Cassi
3 months ago
I vaguely recall that conducting a follow-up audit is a standard procedure for addressing major nonconformities. It allows the company to rectify issues before certification decisions are made.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paul
3 months ago
Revoking certification seems too harsh without further examination. I believe we should first verify the issue before taking drastic measures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tatum
4 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where we had to decide on follow-up actions after finding nonconformities. I feel like a follow-up audit makes sense here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephane
4 months ago
I remember we discussed how nonconformities should be addressed, but I'm not sure if a full audit is necessary for just one issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brunilda
4 months ago
This seems like a straightforward case of a major nonconformity being found during an AIMS audit. Based on the options provided, I think the best next step would be to conduct an audit follow-up before recommending the company for certification. This allows for a more comprehensive assessment and ensures the issue has been properly addressed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malissa
4 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. The scenario mentions a successful certification audit, so I'm not sure why there would be a major nonconformity found later. I'll need to re-read the details carefully to make sure I understand the context before deciding on the best course of action.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janet
4 months ago
Okay, I think I have a good handle on this. Based on the information provided, I believe the appropriate next step would be to conduct an audit follow-up before recommending the company for certification. This allows for a more thorough examination to ensure the nonconformity has been properly addressed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carri
5 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not entirely sure which option would be the best approach here. I'll need to think through the implications of each choice carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonette
5 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the appropriate next step after finding a major nonconformity during an AIMS audit. I'll need to carefully review the details of the scenario and the options provided.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mendy
8 months ago
I've seen these access control issues before. A follow-up audit is the sensible approach - it allows the company to demonstrate their commitment to meeting the ISO/IEC 42001 requirements.
upvoted 0 times
Catalina
7 months ago
A: Definitely, it's about continuous improvement and compliance with the standard
upvoted 0 times
...
Johnna
7 months ago
C: It's important to give them a chance to rectify the issue before taking any drastic actions
upvoted 0 times
...
Terrilyn
7 months ago
B: Agreed, a follow-up audit will ensure the company addresses the nonconformity
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylou
7 months ago
A: Conduct an audit follow-up before the company is recommended for certification
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Alaine
8 months ago
Revoking the auditee's certification without further examination seems unfair, so I also support conducting an audit follow-up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Olene
8 months ago
I believe conducting another full audit of the auditee's entire AIMS would be too extreme in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hermila
9 months ago
I agree with Lawrence, conducting an audit follow-up would ensure that the nonconformity is addressed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rex
9 months ago
Haha, revoking the certification without further examination? That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The auditors need to work with the company, not just yank their certification.
upvoted 0 times
Nan
7 months ago
User 3
upvoted 0 times
...
Howard
8 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
8 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lawrence
9 months ago
I think the appropriate next step is to conduct an audit follow-up before recommending certification.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kami
9 months ago
Ah, those pesky access controls! Let's not be too hasty here. A follow-up audit is the way to go - give them a chance to fix it and show they're serious about improving their AIMS.
upvoted 0 times
Rozella
8 months ago
C: Agreed, it's about continuous improvement and ensuring compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dulce
8 months ago
B: It's important to give them the opportunity to rectify the issue before making any decisions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lezlie
8 months ago
A: Definitely agree, a follow-up audit is necessary to ensure they address the nonconformity.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Celestine
10 months ago
I agree, a full audit after a major nonconformity is too extreme. The company should be allowed to correct the issue and demonstrate compliance before any drastic action is taken.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janine
10 months ago
The appropriate next step would be to conduct an audit follow-up before the company is recommended for certification. We should give them a chance to address the nonconformity before revoking their certification.
upvoted 0 times
Tamra
9 months ago
It's important to ensure that the company has rectified the ineffective access controls for sensitive data before recommending them for certification.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kenneth
9 months ago
I agree, conducting an audit follow-up would be the most appropriate next step in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ngoc
9 months ago
We need to give the company a chance to address the nonconformity before taking any drastic action.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel