Q: 4
Scenario 8: SunDee is a biopharmaceutical firm headquartered in California, US. Renowned for its
pioneering work in the field of human therapeutics, SunDee places a strong emphasis on addressing
critical healthcare concerns, particularly in the domains of cardiovascular diseases, oncology, bone
health, and inflammation. SunDee has demonstrated its commitment to data security and integrity
by maintaining an effective information security management system (ISMS) based on ISO/IEC 27001
for the past two years.
In preparation for the recertification audit, SunDee conducted an internal audit. The company's top
management appointed Alex, who has actively managed the Compliance Department's day-to-day
operations for the last six months, as the internal auditor. With this dual role assignment, Alex is
tasked with conducting an audit that ensures compliance and provides valuable recommendations to
improve operational efficiency.
During the internal audit, a few nonconformities were identified. To address them comprehensively,
the company created action plans for each nonconformity, working closely with the audit team
leader.
SunDee's senior management conducted a comprehensive review of the ISMS to evaluate its
appropriateness, sufficiency, and efficiency. This was integrated into their regular management
meetings. Essential documents, including audit reports, action plans, and review outcomes, were
distributed to all members before the meeting. The agenda covered the status of previous review
actions, changes affecting the ISMS, feedback, stakeholder inputs, and opportunities for
improvement. Decisions and actions targeting ISMS improvements were made, with a significant role
played by the ISMS coordinator and the internal audit team in preparing follow-up action plans,
which were then approved by top management.
In response to the review outcomes, SunDee promptly implemented corrective actions,
strengthening its information security measures. Additionally, dashboard tools were introduced to
provide a high-level overview of key performance indicators essential for monitoring the
organization's information security management. These indicators included metrics on security
incidents, their costs, system vulnerability tests, nonconformity detection, and resolution times,
facilitating effective recording, reporting, and tracking of monitoring activities. Furthermore, SunDee
embarked on a comprehensive measurement process to assess the progress and outcomes of
ongoing projects, implementing extensive measures across all processes. The top management
determined that the individual responsible for the information, aside from owning the data that
contributes to the measures, would also be designated accountable for executing these
measurement activities.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Did SunDee define the roles for measurement activities correctly?
Options
Discussion
My pick: A, ISO 27001 does allow the owner to handle measurement responsibilities. Not 100 percent sure, but seems fine here.
B tbh, I don't think ISO/IEC 27001 strictly requires the owner to be separated from measurement activities but usually recommends clear separation to minimize conflicts. A feels like a trap if you overread independence. Not totally sure, open to debate.
B
Probably A. It sounds like the owner being in charge of measurement tasks is fine for ISO 27001, but I'm a bit unsure if there's maybe a conflict of interest. Anyone else get this on practice exams?
Its A. ISO 27001 allows the information owner to be responsible for measurement tasks too. Pretty sure this matches best practice here.
Maybe B, since I thought ISO 27001 expects some duty separation for checks like measurement activities. Having the same info owner do both could risk bias. Not totally sure though, anyone else see it this way?
A , I've seen similar questions on practice and ISO 27001 doesn't forbid owners from handling measurement roles.
B I always thought owner shouldn't handle both roles for measurement, but maybe I'm missing something here
I don’t think it’s A. B makes sense since ISO 27001 usually recommends clear separation of duties for measurement to prevent conflicts. Assigning both roles to one person could be a trap here, but open to other views.
Why not B? The scenario doesn't show a segregation of roles but ISO 27001 allows flexibility. Trap for over-separating duties.
Be respectful. No spam.