Q: 6
You ask the IT Manager why the organisation still uses the mobile app while personal data
encryption and pseudonymization tests failed. Also, whether the Service Manager is authorized to
approve the test.
The IT Manager explains the test results should be approved by him according to the software
security management procedure. The reason why the encryption and pseudonymization functions
failed is that these functions heavily slowed down the system and service performance. An extra
150% of resources are needed to cover this. The Service Manager agreed that access control is good
enough and acceptable. That's why the Service Manager signed the approval.
You sample one of the medical staff's mobile and found that ABC's healthcare mobile app, version
1.01 is installed. You found that version 1.01 has no test record.
The IT Manager explains that because of frequent ransomware attacks, the outsourced mobile app
development company gave a free minor update on the tested software, performed an emergency
release of the updated software, and gave a verbal guarantee that there will be no impact on any
security functions. Based on his 20 years of information security experience, there is no need to re-
test.
You are preparing the audit findings Select two options that are correct.
Options
Discussion
B and C, no question. Both are nonconformities here per the scenario details.
Probably B and C. Letting the Service Manager approve test results when it's not in line with the process is a classic nonconformity (B), and skipping proper change control for the emergency app update hits C dead on. I don't think D fits as much here, it's more an improvement point than a real NC. If someone thinks otherwise, chime in.
B C tbh, but if the update had been formally documented and tested before rollout, C wouldn’t really apply. Pretty sure exam expects B/C for this exact wording.
Hard to say, B and C. Both are nonconformities, since approval didn't follow procedure (B) and the version change wasn’t properly controlled (C). Saw something similar in an exam report. Pretty sure this is what ISO expects, but let me know if you disagree.
C or B. Had something like this in a mock and both failure to control changes (C) and not following the approval procedure (B) are clear nonconformities. Service Manager isn’t authorized, plus rolling out untested app version breaks clause 8.1. Pretty sure these two fit best but open to other takes.
BC imo, I had almost exactly this scenario in a mock. Both controls not followed so both are NCs.
Option B and C here. Both nonconformities pop out, since procedures weren't followed for approvals and proper change control wasn't done with the emergency release. Pretty standard ISO 27001 misses in real audits. If you read it another way let me know, but that's how I see it.
C/D? Struggling to pick, both seem like valid audit findings here. Anyone else waffling between those two?
D . The situation with picking a vendor just because of free services smells like an opportunity for improvement, especially with ISO 27001 wanting you to focus on risk and provider qualification (A.5.21). Not sure it's as critical as the nonconformities in B or C, but I could see the auditor flagging D if procurement process wasn't strong. Anyone else think D should be flagged here?
Option B and C, but not 100% sure. Both show up as nonconformities in the official guide and practice tests for similar scenarios, especially when no proper change control or approval is followed. Anyone see a case for F instead?
Be respectful. No spam.