Exam Dumps and Braindumps for CISM Certification

Assess the scope and security impact of the unapproved collaboration site. This is the most appropriate immediate action because it focuses on understanding the facts and risks before making changes that could disrupt work or destroy evidence.

Start the assessment by identifying who signed up and who has access, what data has been uploaded or shared, and what integrations or permissions are in place. The assessment lets you determine whether sensitive data is exposed, whether account compromise is possible, and what containment or remediation steps are needed next.

Deploy a Cloud Access Security Broker and enforce CASB policies is not the best immediate action because deploying a CASB is typically a planned project that takes time to configure and tune. It may be a good longer term control but it does not provide the rapid visibility and containment you need right away.

Immediately block user access to the collaboration site is overly disruptive as a first step because it can interrupt business activities and may destroy forensic evidence. It is better to assess the situation and preserve logs and data so that any blocking or remediation is targeted and justified.

Notify senior executives and escalate the issue to leadership is premature as the very first action because executives will need a concise, evidence based summary. You should gather the facts and determine impact before escalating so that leadership can make informed decisions if escalation is required.

The correct option is Security program that enables business operations.

Security program that enables business operations is correct because it describes an enterprise level approach that aligns information security with business strategy and priorities. A security program designed to enable operations embeds risk based controls into processes and technology so security helps the organization achieve its goals rather than becoming a bottleneck.

Such a program includes governance risk assessment policy implementation metrics and continuous improvement so leaders can see security contributing to business value. It leverages capabilities like identity and access management and training as components of the program rather than treating those capabilities as the overall strategy.

Cloud Identity and Access Management is a valuable toolset for managing identities and permissions but it is not a complete strategy. It supports a security program but it does not by itself ensure security is aligned with strategic business goals.

Security awareness initiative focuses on training and culture and it is an important component of a program but it is not sufficient on its own. A single initiative does not provide the governance risk management and technical integration required to enable business operations at the program level.

Conduct regular external penetration testing is correct.

Conduct regular external penetration testing simulates real world attacks against the organization perimeter and reveals exploitable vulnerabilities in networks, applications, and configurations that technical controls alone may not show. It validates how defenses function together under realistic conditions and measures the effectiveness of controls that include edge protections, monitoring, and baseline configurations.

Conduct regular external penetration testing also helps prioritize remediation by demonstrating exploitability and potential impact and it can uncover chained weaknesses that automated tools or policy checks might miss.

Cloud Armor is an edge protection service that can block and mitigate certain attack types, but it is a control rather than a test and it does not prove that the perimeter is secure against novel or chained attack vectors.

Define and enforce minimum security baselines is essential for reducing risk and ensuring consistent hardening, but baselines are preventive configurations and do not themselves demonstrate how the perimeter behaves under active attack.

Deploy an intrusion detection system to monitor traffic gives visibility and can alert on suspicious activity, but monitoring alone does not validate that controls cannot be bypassed or that complex attack paths do not exist.

The correct answer is Identify the hosts and services that were impacted.

Identifying which hosts and services were impacted is the proper first step because it establishes the scope of the incident and lets the team prioritize critical systems. This step also preserves forensic evidence and informs whether mitigation, containment, or recovery actions are needed and where they should be applied.

With a clear inventory of affected systems the incident response team can then apply targeted mitigations such as traffic filtering or rate limiting, coordinate with network providers, and plan safe recovery steps. Recovery actions are safer and more effective once the team has confirmed which services are compromised and which are still healthy.

Apply emergency Cloud Armor rules and scale load balancers is not the correct first action because it presumes you already know the affected hosts and it may change traffic patterns or system state in ways that hinder investigation. Emergency mitigation can be useful but it is typically taken after or alongside identification, not before it.

Restore services from backups is not the correct first action because restoring before containment and verification can reintroduce compromised data or allow the attack to continue. Restoration is a later recovery step that should only occur after the incident has been analyzed and systems are confirmed clean.

The cost to implement protections exceeds the asset value and expected loss is the correct choice.

The security assessment team likely performed a cost benefit evaluation and determined that the expected loss from a denial of service event is lower than the expense of deploying and maintaining effective protections. In risk management it is acceptable to formally accept a risk when the control costs outweigh the value of the asset and the projected loss, and the organization documents and monitors that decision.

Cloud Armor and HTTP(S) Load Balancing is incorrect because those are mitigation tools rather than reasons to accept risk. They can reduce DoS exposure but citing them does not explain why the team would knowingly accept the risk.

The likelihood of a DoS occurrence cannot be reliably estimated is incorrect because uncertainty about exact probabilities does not by itself justify acceptance. Teams still estimate expected loss using best available data and then compare that to mitigation costs to make a decision.

Mitigation would require a major infrastructure redesign that is impractical is incorrect in this context because the question states the acceptance was driven by cost exceeding asset value and expected loss. While impracticality can influence treatment choices it is a different rationale than a direct cost versus value calculation.

Alignment with strategic objectives is the most essential factor for effective enterprise security governance.

When security is aligned with strategic objectives it ensures that policies controls and investments support the business goals and the organization s risk appetite. Governance then becomes a means to prioritize initiatives allocate resources and measure outcomes that matter to leadership and stakeholders.

Executive sponsorship and governance board is important because it provides authority oversight and accountability but it does not by itself ensure that security decisions map to business priorities. Without strategic alignment a board or sponsors may back activities that are well governed but that do not reduce the most important business risks.

Centralized security operations center provides essential detection investigation and response capabilities but it is an operational function rather than the core of governance. A SOC supports governance through execution but governance is most effective when it is driven by alignment to enterprise objectives.

The correct option is Role based access control.

Role based access control assigns permissions to roles and then assigns employees to those roles which makes it straightforward to grant the exact access needed for audit duties or for claims duties. This approach enforces separation of duties and the principle of least privilege while keeping administration simple when staff rotate between functions.

Attribute based access control is incorrect because it bases decisions on user, resource, and environmental attributes and it is typically used for very fine grained or context sensitive policies rather than straightforward duty based role assignments. The added complexity makes it less directly suited to mapping stable job duties to access rights in this scenario.

Discretionary access control is incorrect because it lets resource owners grant and revoke access at their discretion which can undermine consistent enforcement of separation of duties and make it harder to centrally manage permissions when employees rotate through roles.

Multilevel security model is incorrect because it enforces access based on hierarchical classification levels and clearances which is intended for controlling information by sensitivity rather than by job role or specific operational duties.

The correct answer is Execute a formal review and live test of the incident response plan.

Executives are primarily concerned with demonstrable readiness so a formal review combined with a live test gives the strongest assurance. The review updates procedures and roles while the live test validates detection, containment, recovery, communications, and backup restoration under realistic conditions.

Running a live test produces measurable outcomes such as recovery time and recovery point results and it reveals procedural and technical gaps that can be remediated before a real ransomware event occurs. Presenting those test results is the most direct way to address executive concerns about readiness.

Deploy Google Cloud Security Command Center is a useful security product but it is a monitoring and visibility tool rather than a proof of operational readiness. Deploying a tool does not by itself demonstrate that teams can execute the incident response plan or that recovery processes work under ransomware conditions.

Conduct a tabletop exercise with executives and the incident response team is valuable for discussion and decision making but it is a discussion based activity. Tabletop exercises rarely exercise technical controls or restoration procedures in a realistic way and so they provide less concrete evidence of readiness than a live test.

The correct option is Performing thorough due diligence on the SOC’s implemented controls.

Choosing an external SOC is primarily about trust in their operational security and the effectiveness of their controls. By Performing thorough due diligence on the SOC’s implemented controls you can verify that they actually operate effective monitoring, alerting, retention and incident response processes, and that those controls are tested and evidenced.

Due diligence typically includes reviewing independent audit reports such as SOC 2 Type II, examining incident response playbooks and runbooks, validating alerting and log chain of custody, confirming staff vetting and segregation of duties, and seeing evidence of continuous monitoring and corrective action. Those checks reduce operational and legal risk when handing over visibility and response to an external team.

Compatibility with the company’s cloud logging and SIEM systems is important because you must be able to ingest logs and alerts, but it is not the most critical factor. If the provider’s controls are weak then compatibility does not protect you from missed detections or improper handling of incidents.

Cost effectiveness of the SOC engagement matters for budget decisions, but choosing a cheaper provider without proven controls increases risk. Cost is a secondary consideration after verifying that security and operational controls are effective.

Adherence to applicable regulatory and compliance frameworks is necessary to meet legal obligations, but compliance statements alone do not prove that controls are implemented or operating effectively. Proper due diligence looks for evidence of both compliance mappings and operational effectiveness.

The correct option is A sudden rise in emergency change requests.

A sudden increase in emergency change requests signals that standard planning and approval paths are being bypassed and teams are reacting to issues rather than preventing them. This pattern usually means that change scheduling, risk assessment, testing, or escalation procedures need to be reviewed to reduce unplanned work and operational risk.

Emergency change requests often bypass normal controls and introduce higher chances of incidents and rollbacks. Reviewing the procedures that govern how changes are approved, tested, and rolled back helps restore predictable operations and reduces the need for emergency fixes.

Frequent postponements of approved change tickets is not the best indicator of flawed operational procedures because postponements often reflect resource constraints or scheduling conflicts rather than systemic process failures. Adjustments to capacity planning or prioritization are more likely required.

Increase in failed change implementations points to problems in execution, testing, or tooling and is important to investigate. However it does not specifically indicate that the overall change approval and emergency handling procedures are failing in the same way that a spike in emergency changes does.

Enables non-repudiation for user actions is correct. Authentication tokens are tied to a specific identity and can be cryptographically verified which supports proving who performed an action.

Tokens carry claims and metadata that can be validated by services and linked to audit records. When tokens are used together with logging and identity controls they create an auditable, verifiable trail that supports accountability and non-repudiation.

Cloud Audit Logs is incorrect because it names a logging product rather than a primary business advantage of using tokens. Audit logs work with tokens to record activity but they are not the direct benefit that tokens themselves provide.

Reduces the need for regular password changes is incorrect because tokens do not remove the need for password management for human credentials. Tokens often replace passwords for programmatic access but organizations still need password policies and lifecycle controls for user accounts.

Enhances convenience by simplifying sign in is incorrect because while tokens can improve some user experiences they are primarily used for secure, verifiable authentication and authorization. The question asks about the business advantage related to security and accountability which is non-repudiation rather than convenience.

Allocate resources according to assessed risk levels is the correct choice when budgets and staff are reduced to maintain an effective security program.

Allocate resources according to assessed risk levels ensures that limited funding and personnel are applied to the assets and threats that present the highest impact and likelihood. This approach lets you prioritize critical controls, sustain monitoring and incident response for the most important systems, and defer lower risk work until capacity increases.

Using a risk based allocation also helps justify decisions to leadership and provides a measurable way to improve or maintain security posture while resources are constrained. It creates clear priorities so teams can focus on what will reduce the greatest risk per dollar and per staff hour.

Adopt managed security services is not the best single priority because outsourcing can address staffing gaps but still requires budget and effective governance. A managed service may not be targeted at your highest risks and could consume funds without delivering the prioritized risk reduction you need.

Cut security training and development is incorrect because reducing training increases human risk and weakens the overall security program. Training and awareness are often high impact and relatively low cost, and cutting them tends to increase incidents and reduce the effectiveness of other controls.

The correct option is Ensure the organization can achieve its stated objectives.

An enterprise risk management program is focused on identifying assessing and responding to risks that could prevent the organization from meeting its strategic goals and operational targets. The program is organization wide and it considers risks to strategy operations reporting and compliance so that decision makers can increase the likelihood of achieving objectives.

Cloud Security Command Center is incorrect because it is a Google Cloud Platform security product that helps detect and manage cloud security issues. It is a tool and not the overarching purpose of an enterprise risk management program.

Protect critical IT assets that support core business processes is incorrect because protecting IT assets is a specific risk control objective. It can be part of a risk management program but it is narrower than the enterprise level aim of enabling the organization to meet its stated objectives.

Maintain continuous availability of IT systems and services is incorrect because ensuring availability is an operational resilience and continuity goal. It is important and related to risk management but it is not the primary, organization wide objective of an ERM program.

The correct option is Create a dedicated insider threat risk assessment framework.

A dedicated insider threat risk assessment framework provides a structured way to identify, assess, and mitigate the full range of insider risks. It defines roles and responsibilities, risk criteria, detection and reporting processes, investigative procedures, and remediation actions so the organization can respond consistently and reduce overall risk.

Such a framework also allows the organization to combine technical controls, monitoring, policy, legal guidance, and training into a coordinated program. That integration makes responses repeatable and measurable and it supports continuous improvement as new behaviors and risks emerge.

User and entity behavior analytics is not the best single answer because it is a useful detection technology but it is only one component of a broader framework. Relying solely on analytics leaves gaps in policy, process, governance, and response capabilities.

Targeted employee training on reporting suspicious conduct is an important preventive and reporting measure but it does not by itself establish the governance, risk assessment, or investigative processes needed to manage insider threats comprehensively.

The correct answer is Establishing an information security management system that reflects the organization’s context and objectives.

An information security management system or ISMS is the foundational requirement of ISO/IEC 27001 because the standard is a management system standard. The ISMS defines scope, leadership responsibilities, policies, objectives, and the process for assessing and treating risks so that subsequent activities are coherent and auditable.

Once the ISMS scope and policies are in place the organization performs risk assessments, creates inventories, applies controls, and prepares for external assessment. Establishing the ISMS first ensures those activities are aligned with the organization context and objectives and that evidence exists for certification.

Engaging an external auditor to carry out a gap assessment against the standard is not the first action because auditors require a defined ISMS to assess against. A gap assessment can be useful later to measure readiness but it assumes that the organization has already established the management system and its scope.

Completing a comprehensive inventory of information assets and performing a full risk analysis is a necessary part of the ISMS implementation but it is not the very first step. Those tasks take place as part of the ISMS planning and risk management process after the organization has defined its context, scope, and policies.

Running a Google Cloud Security Command Center review of cloud configuration and posture can help with cloud security and evidence gathering but it only covers technical and cloud specific controls. ISO/IEC 27001 requires an organization wide management system that addresses people, processes, and technology so a cloud posture review alone is insufficient as the starting point.

Stronger centralized governance and oversight is the correct answer.

Centralized information security organizations create consistent policies and standards across the enterprise and enable unified risk management, compliance reporting, and clear accountability. They reduce duplicated effort and provide a single place to enforce controls and allocate security resources, which makes centralized governance the primary advantage.

Security Command Center is a Google Cloud product that provides asset visibility, vulnerability scanning, and threat detection. It is not an organizational model and it does not by itself provide the enterprise governance and oversight that come from a centralized security organization.

Faster customization to business unit requirements is incorrect because centralization typically emphasizes consistency and control rather than rapid, localized customization. Business units that need fast, tailored solutions usually rely on decentralized or federated models to achieve that agility.

The correct answer is It prioritizes recovery efforts according to the importance of business functions.

A business impact analysis identifies which services and processes are most critical to the organization and maps their dependencies and acceptable downtime. That information lets the organization set recovery time objectives and sequence recovery work so the most important business functions are restored first. Prioritizing recovery in this way is the main advantage the BIA brings to a risk assessment process.

Cloud Security Command Center is a Google Cloud product that aggregates security findings and helps teams monitor and respond to threats. It is a tool for security visibility and management and not a substitute for performing a business impact analysis, so it does not provide the stated advantage.

It identifies technical vulnerabilities in information systems describes a technical vulnerability assessment or scanning activity. That work is important but it focuses on technical flaws and remediation priorities rather than on ranking business functions by their impact and recovery needs.

It quantifies the potential financial losses from incidents can be an output of broader risk or impact studies but it is not the primary advantage of adding a BIA into the risk assessment. The BIA is mainly about understanding operational criticality and recovery priorities rather than producing detailed financial loss models.

Maintain comprehensive regularly updated security documentation is correct because it most reliably preserves information security operational continuity during staff turnover.

Maintain comprehensive regularly updated security documentation captures procedures, configurations, runbooks, contact lists, and escalation steps so that new staff can resume operations quickly and correctly.

Maintain comprehensive regularly updated security documentation also supports audits, knowledge transfer, and change control as systems evolve. Versioning and access controls keep the documentation reliable and available during transitions.

Simplify and automate security workflows is useful for reducing manual error and improving consistency but it does not by itself preserve the contextual knowledge, exceptions, and recovery steps that documentation provides.

Run company wide security awareness program improves culture and reduces risky behavior but it does not ensure that specific operational procedures and system configurations are retained when personnel change.

Assign a single security owner for all processes concentrates responsibility and can create a single point of failure. This approach does not guarantee that knowledge is distributed or accessible if that person leaves or is unavailable.

The correct option is Intelligent middleware that reroutes traffic from failed components to healthy systems.

This approach ensures continuous availability because it detects failures and redirects requests to healthy instances so users experience minimal disruption. The middleware can use health checks and service discovery to perform fast failover and it can implement retries and circuit breaking to reduce cascading failures.

It also complements infrastructure components such as load balancers and autoscaling by providing application level routing policies and fallbacks so the system degrades gracefully instead of failing outright.

Distributed server architecture with load balancers is useful but it does not by itself guarantee intelligent failover. Without middleware or advanced routing logic a load balancer may still direct traffic to unhealthy backends or lack application level retries.

Google Cloud Load Balancing is a capable product that offers health checks and failover, but naming a single product does not describe the architectural pattern that actively reroutes and orchestrates traffic across failing components. It can be part of the solution but it is not the broader architecture described by the correct option.

Single centralized server handling all transactions is a single point of failure and so it cannot ensure continuous availability when components fail because it lacks redundancy and failover mechanisms.

The correct option is Conduct a compliance gap analysis.

A compliance gap analysis identifies which regulatory requirements are not being met and maps those gaps to existing controls. It gives the information security manager a clear scope of the problems and a prioritised remediation plan that can be presented to auditors and regulators. This step is the logical first action because it defines what must change before you run technical scans or assess business process risks.

The output of a compliance gap analysis then guides targeted actions such as technical vulnerability scanning and formal risk evaluations so that efforts are focused on the most relevant deficiencies and the organisation can demonstrate corrective progress.

Perform a vulnerability scan is not the best first action because a scan focuses on technical vulnerabilities and may miss policy process or control design gaps that caused the regulatory failure. Scans are useful later to validate technical fixes after you know what needs to be remediated.

Evaluate risk to critical business processes is an important activity but it should follow the gap analysis so that the risk evaluation is scoped to the actual compliance gaps and control failures. Starting with risk evaluation can lead to misprioritisation if you have not yet identified the exact regulatory requirements that are failing.

Establishes clear accountability for security duties among staff is the correct answer.

Adding specific security duties to job descriptions makes roles and responsibilities explicit and ties those responsibilities to performance expectations and supervisory oversight. This clarity creates a direct line of accountability so that staff understand what security tasks they must perform and managers can hold the right people responsible when policies are not followed or when incidents occur.

Explicit duties also support consistent training and assignment of privileges and they help enforce separation of duties and operational ownership across teams. Those outcomes strengthen the security posture because responsibility is not assumed or ambiguous.

Improves alignment with organizational security policies is not the main reason. While clearer job descriptions can help align work with policies that is a secondary benefit and not the primary purpose of adding duties.

Accelerates hiring and onboarding workflows is not correct. Defining duties may aid recruitment clarity but it does not inherently speed the hiring or onboarding processes which depend on many other HR and operational factors.

Provides documented evidence for compliance audits is also not the main reason. Job descriptions can serve as one piece of evidence for auditors but audits typically require operational records and control evidence and the primary goal of adding duties is to establish accountability rather than to create audit artifacts.

The correct option is Has tight continuity budgets and needs low ongoing standby costs.

Cold disaster recovery sites are designed to minimize ongoing expense by keeping only minimal infrastructure and resources available until a disaster triggers a recovery. They are appropriate when an organization must limit standby costs and can accept longer recovery times rather than immediate failover.

The option Requires restoration of critical services within minutes is wrong because cold sites require time to provision resources and restore systems and they cannot meet minute level recovery time objectives. For minute level restoration a hot site or actively replicated solution is required.

The option Uses synchronous replication to keep production and backup data identical is wrong because cold sites do not use synchronous replication. Synchronous replication is used for hot or active solutions where data must be identical across locations and data loss must be minimized.

Producing a fixed length unique string from input data by using a cryptographic hashing algorithm for integrity verification is the correct option.

Producing a fixed length unique string from input data by using a cryptographic hashing algorithm for integrity verification describes a cryptographic hash function that converts arbitrary input into a deterministic fixed length digest. Cryptographic hash functions are designed to support integrity verification because a small change to the input produces a different digest and the original input cannot be feasibly recovered from the digest.

The hashing operation is one way and it provides properties such as preimage resistance and collision resistance which make it suitable for checksums, signatures, and verifying data integrity rather than keeping data secret.

Creating an encrypted tunnel between remote networks for secure data transit is incorrect because that describes a VPN or secure network link. That option refers to protecting data in transit with encryption and not to producing a digest for integrity verification.

Cloud KMS is incorrect because Cloud KMS is a managed key service for creating and managing cryptographic keys and performing encryption or signing operations. It is not itself the definition of a hashing operation even though it can be used with other services that perform related tasks.

Encrypting sensitive information so that only authorized recipients can read it is incorrect because that describes encryption and confidentiality. Encryption preserves secrecy and allows reversal with the correct key, while hashing is non reversible and is used for integrity checks rather than confidentiality.

Contain the incident and begin triage procedures is the correct option.

Containment is the immediate priority because it limits further damage and preserves the ability to investigate. Triage procedures allow responders to identify scope and critical systems and to decide which containment and remediation steps are necessary while preserving evidence and minimizing business impact.

Revoke compromised service account keys and rotate credentials is not the immediate first action even though credential rotation is often part of containment. Revoking keys without understanding the full scope can disrupt dependent services and may tip off the attacker, so credential actions are usually taken as part of the containment plan after triage informs what must be secured.

Collect full forensic images of affected endpoints is also not the immediate action in a live intrusion in most cases. Full imaging is important for detailed analysis but it is time consuming and can be disruptive. Responders typically perform containment and capture volatile data first and then create full forensic images in a controlled manner after isolation to preserve evidence and context.

It is deceiving or persuading people to reveal confidential information is the correct answer.

This response captures the core of social engineering because the goal is to manipulate human behavior to obtain sensitive data or access rather than to attack systems directly.

Social engineering commonly uses techniques such as phishing, pretexting, baiting, and impersonation to trick people into disclosing credentials, installing malicious software, or performing actions that compromise security.

It is a research activity that examines online social interactions without focusing on security risks is incorrect because that describes neutral academic or social research and not the deliberate effort to deceive people for malicious gain.

It is exploiting software vulnerabilities to bypass electronic security controls is incorrect because that refers to technical exploitation of code or systems rather than manipulating people to reveal information or take unsafe actions.

It is following authorized staff into restricted areas to obtain physical access is incorrect because that describes tailgating, which is a physical access technique and only one possible method within the broader set of social engineering tactics rather than the overall definition.