I don't see why the org's financials or the MS rep's background would matter for ISO 27001 audit planning. They don't impact scope or required evidence. So, C and E make sense here imo. Disagree?
Free ISO-IEC-27001-LEAD-AUDITOR Practice Test Questions and Answers (2026) Practice Questions
Free preview: 20 questions.
ISO-IEC-27001-LEAD-AUDITOR
I don't think it's A. Comparing license invoices with software inventory is pure numbers, so that's C (mathematical evidence). Analytical evidence would be more about interpreting patterns or trends, but Jack's just matching counts here. This kind of question trips people up sometimes!
I don't think it's C. Auditors just review the organization's processes, not the actual compliance status, so A and B fit best. C is a bit of a trap since auditors aren't certifying legal compliance directly, pretty sure about that.
Option B. since phishing is classified as a hacker/cracker attack in most ISO/IEC 27001 frameworks. Had something like this in a mock exam-a lot of questions want the "attack type" rather than legal or vulnerability angle. Pretty sure that's what they're after here. Someone let me know if they see it differently.
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 stands out here since vehicular incidents relate to accidents or physical events, not intentional info sec attacks. The other options can be linked back to things like unauthorized access or exploiting vulnerabilities, which ISO 27001 recognizes as attack types. Pretty sure that's why B's correct, unless they're using another definition for "attack" in the question. Agree?
B makes the most sense since vehicular incidents aren't really considered info sec attacks, they're more like physical accidents. The others can be linked to security breaches or intentional acts. Pretty sure it's B here but open to other views.
Bit of a nitpick but if we read "human interaction" to include reviewing written responses, then A and B both fit. If they'd asked for verbal interaction only, B might be questionable. Pretty sure it's AB as per most exam practice, unless they're super strict about only live convo.
Actually, I don’t think A is right here. It’s B because "restricted" is for specific named individuals, while "confidential" can go to a whole authorized group. Seen this split in other ISO 27001 practice questions too and C is a bit of a trap since it suggests broader org access than confidential really allows. Let me know if anyone's seen different terminology on their course.
I think it's E, G, and H for this one. These aren't really audit trails for info sec incident management, just more about policy content or audit criteria. Pretty sure that's the logic, but would be good to double-check with ISO 27001 wording if anyone disagrees!

Pretty sure I ran into a similar one in exam, in practice dumps. Third-party auditor handles the independent assessment and submits findings, but the certification body alone decides if your org gets the ISO 27001 certificate (certification decision). This split ensures impartiality per ISO 19011. Pretty sure that's what they're looking for-auditor assesses, certification body certifies. Someone disagree?
Typical split: auditor does the assessment, certification body actually grants or withdraws the certificate based on that report. That’s in the official guide and practice tests I’ve seen. Let me know if you’ve seen different wording.

Pretty sure the correct completion is "ensure effectiveness and suitability of the management system". That's what ISO 27001 clause 5.2 expects for regulatory compliance parts. Seen this phrasing on official guides, but let me know if you got something else from training materials.

evaluation → collected audit evidence is the way to go here. Had something like this in a mock before, and "evaluation" plus "evidence" match ISO 19011 definition exactly. Terms like "assessment" might look similar but aren't what's used in the standard. Pretty sure that's what they're looking for, unless they've changed terminology since last update.


Yeah, it's about the competence of the audit team and the decision made by the certification body. That's what accredited certification really guarantees under ISO/IEC 17021-1. Pretty sure that's what they're looking for here, unless anyone sees it differently?
I think this fits if you interpret the standard a bit literally, as impartiality's often highlighted. But based on some practice questions, process might be oversold here. Anyone see issues with that logic?


Establish management system → plan audit programme → internal audits → management review → certification body (stage 1 & 2) → corrective actions. This matches the standard ISMS certification flow per PECB. Pretty sure that's correct, but open to tweaks if someone spots an exception here.

Yeah, order matters here for audit trails. It should go: Determine source of information, Collect by sampling, Reviewing, Audit evidence, Evaluating against audit criteria, Audit findings, then Audit conclusions. Pretty sure that matches typical ISO 27001 audit flow from planning through reporting but if someone disagrees let me know since I've seen similar orders in practice questions.