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 NIS 2 Directive Lead Implementer Exam - Topic 6 Question 6 Discussion

Actual exam question for PECB's NIS 2 Directive Lead Implementer exam
Question #: 6
Topic #: 6
[All NIS 2 Directive Lead Implementer Questions]

Scenario 2:

MHospital, founded in 2005 in Metropolis, has become a healthcare industry leader with over 2,000 dedicated employees known for its commitment to qualitative medical services and patient care innovation. With the rise of cyberattacks targeting healthcare institutions, MHospital acknowledged the need for a comprehensive cyber strategy to mitigate risks effectively and ensure patient safety and data security. Hence, it decided to implement the NIS 2 Directive requirements. To avoid creating additional processes that do not fit the company's context and culture, MHospital decided to integrate the Directive's requirements into its existing processes. To initiate the implementation of the Directive, the company decided to conduct a gap analysis to assess the current state of the cybersecurity measures against the requirements outlined in the NIS 2 Directive and then identify opportunities for closing the gap.

Recognizing the indispensable role of a computer security incident response team (CSIRT) in maintaining a secure network environment, MHospital empowers its CSIRT to conduct thorough penetration testing on the company's networks. This rigorous testing helps identify vulnerabilities with a potentially significant impact and enables the implementation of robust security measures. The CSIRT monitors threats and vulnerabilities at the national level and assists MHospital regarding real-time monitoring of their network and information systems. MHospital also conducts cooperative evaluations of security risks within essential supply chains for critical ICT services and systems. Collaborating with interested parties, it engages in the assessment of security risks, contributing to a collective effort to enhance the resilience of the healthcare sector against cyber threats.

To ensure compliance with the NIS 2 Directive's reporting requirements, MHospital has streamlined its incident reporting process. In the event of a security incident, the company is committed to issuing an official notification within four days of identifying the incident to ensure that prompt actions are taken to mitigate the impact of incidents and maintain the integrity of patient data and healthcare operations. MHospital's dedication to implementing the NIS 2 Directive extends to cyber strategy and governance. The company has established robust cyber risk management and compliance protocols, aligning its cybersecurity initiatives with its overarching business objectives.

According to scenario 2, MHospital is committed to issuing an official notification within four days of identifying an incident. Is this in compliance with the NIS 2 Directive requirements?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Sueann
3 days ago
Hold up, 4 days? That's like an eternity in the cybersecurity world. MHospital needs to step up their game and comply with the 48-hour requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernadine
8 days ago
Hmm, 4 days? That's cutting it close. I think the NIS 2 Directive requires a faster response to mitigate the impact of incidents.
upvoted 0 times
...
Essie
13 days ago
The 4-day notification period seems a bit too long. I'd expect a more stringent timeline from a leading healthcare provider like MHospital.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corrina
18 days ago
I recall that the NIS 2 Directive emphasizes quick reporting, so I think the answer is definitely not four days.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
23 days ago
I thought the timeframe for reporting was longer, maybe 96 hours? I need to double-check that detail.
upvoted 0 times
...
Catina
29 days ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like the 48-hour requirement was mentioned in a practice question we did last week.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
1 month ago
I remember studying the NIS 2 Directive, and I think the notification period is actually 72 hours, not four days.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rebeca
1 month ago
This is a tricky one. The scenario provides a lot of context, but doesn't explicitly state the NIS 2 Directive's notification timeline. I'll need to carefully weigh the options and see which one best fits the information given. I don't want to rush to an answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorothy
1 month ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The key detail is that the scenario states MHospital is committed to 4-day notification, which doesn't align with the NIS 2 Directive requirements. So the answer has to be B - the notification should be within 72 hours, not 4 days.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracia
2 months ago
Okay, I think I've got this. The scenario says the NIS 2 Directive requires prompt notification, and 4 days (96 hours) seems too long. The correct answer must be A, since the Directive likely requires notification within 48 hours, not the 72 hours that MHospital is doing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindy
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The question asks if the 4-day notification is in compliance with the NIS 2 Directive, but it doesn't explicitly state the Directive's requirement. I'll need to re-read the details more carefully to determine the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharika
2 months ago
I think the answer is B. The scenario states that MHospital is committed to issuing an official notification within four days of identifying the incident, which is 72 hours, not the 96 hours mentioned in option C.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel