Isaca CCAK Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge Exam Practice Test

Cryptography and authentication are good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are critical aspects of cloud security that require constant monitoring and verification. Cryptography and authentication refer to the methods and techniques that ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data and communications in the cloud environment. Cryptography involves the use of encryption algorithms and keys to protect data from unauthorized access or modification. Authentication involves the use of credentials and tokens to verify the identity and access rights of users or devices. Continuous auditing can help to assess the effectiveness and compliance of cryptography and authentication controls, such as data encryption, key management, password policies, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. Continuous auditing can also help to detect and alert any anomalies or issues that may compromise or affect cryptography and authentication, such as data breaches, key leakage, password cracking, unauthorized access, etc123.

Procedures (A) are not good candidates for continuous auditing, as they are not specific or measurable aspects of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Procedures refer to the steps or actions that are performed to achieve a certain objective or result in a specific domain or context. Procedures may vary depending on the type, nature, or complexity of the task or process involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Procedures may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess their effectiveness or compliance123.

Governance (B) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Governance refers to the framework or system that defines the roles, responsibilities, policies, standards, procedures, and practices for managing and overseeing an organization or a domain. Governance may involve multiple stakeholders, such as management, board of directors, regulators, auditors, customers, etc., who have different interests, expectations, or perspectives. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Governance may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123.

Documentation quality (D) is not a good candidate for continuous auditing, as it is not a specific or measurable aspect of cloud security that can be easily automated or tested. Documentation quality refers to the degree to which the documents that describe or support an organization or a domain are accurate, complete, consistent, relevant, and understandable. Documentation quality may depend on various factors, such as the purpose, audience, format, style, language, structure, content, etc., of the documents involved. Continuous auditing requires a clear and consistent definition of the expected outcome or output, as well as the criteria or metrics to evaluate it. Documentation quality may not provide such a definition or criteria, and may require human judgment or interpretation to assess its effectiveness or compliance123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the auditor should review the relationship between the cloud service provider and its service provider to help direct and estimate the level of effort and analysis the auditor should apply1. The auditor should understand the nature and scope of the services provided by the service provider, the contractual obligations and service level agreements, the security and compliance requirements, and the monitoring and reporting mechanisms. The auditor should also assess the risks and controls associated with the service provider, and determine if additional audit procedures are needed to obtain sufficient assurance.

The other options are not the best approach for the auditor. Option A is too strict and might not be feasible or necessary, depending on the type and level of services provided by the service provider. Option C is too lax and might overlook significant risks and gaps in the cloud service. Option D is too narrow and might ignore the impact of the service provider on the cloud customer’s business context. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 13-14.

Periodic documentation review is a critical process that helps organizations identify control gaps and shortcomings, particularly in the context of cloud computing. This process involves regularly examining the documentation of processes, controls, and policies to ensure they are up-to-date and effective. It allows an organization to verify that the controls are operating as intended and to discover any areas where the controls may not fully address the organization’s requirements or the unique risks associated with cloud services. By conducting these reviews, organizations can maintain compliance with relevant regulations and standards, and ensure continuous improvement in their cloud security posture.

References = The significance of periodic documentation review is highlighted in cloud auditing and security best practices, as outlined by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) program12. These resources emphasize the importance of regular reviews as part of a comprehensive cloud governance and compliance strategy.

Controls mapping found in the Scope Applicability column of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) may help organizations to realize cost savings by avoiding duplication of efforts in the compliance evaluation and for the eventual control design and implementation. The Scope Applicability column is a feature of the CCM that indicates which cloud model type (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) or cloud environment (public, hybrid, private) a control applies to. This feature can help organizations to identify and select the most relevant and appropriate controls for their specific cloud scenario, as well as to map them to multiple industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks. By doing so, organizations can reduce the time, resources, and costs involved in achieving and maintaining compliance with various cloud security requirements123.

The other options are not directly related to the question. Option B, by implementing layered security, thus reducing the likelihood of data breaches and the associated costs, is not a valid reason because layered security is a general principle of defense in depth, not a specific feature of the CCM or the Scope Applicability column. Option C, by avoiding the need to hire a cloud security specialist to perform the periodic risk assessment exercise, is not a valid reason because using the CCM or the Scope Applicability column does not eliminate the need for a cloud security specialist or a periodic risk assessment exercise, which are essential for ensuring the effectiveness and adequacy of the cloud security controls. Option D, by avoiding fines for breaching those regulations that impose a controls mapping in order to prove compliance, is not a valid reason because controls mapping is not a mandatory requirement for proving compliance, but a voluntary tool for facilitating compliance. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software2

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

 The best way for the organization to take advantage of the supplier relationship feature of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is to leverage this feature to enable a smarter selection of the next cloud provider. The supplier relationship feature is a column in the CCM spreadsheet that indicates whether a control is influenced by contractual agreements between the cloud service provider and the cloud customer. This feature can help the organization to identify and compare the security and compliance capabilities of different cloud providers, as well as to negotiate and customize the terms of service (TOS) and service level agreements (SLA) according to their needs and requirements123.

The other options are not the best ways to use the supplier relationship feature. Option A, filter out only those controls directly influenced by contractual agreements, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other important controls that are not influenced by contractual agreements, but still relevant for cloud security and governance. Option B, leverage this feature to enable the adoption of the Shared Responsibility Model, is not a good way to use the feature because the Shared Responsibility Model is defined by another column in the CCM spreadsheet, which indicates whether a control is applicable to the cloud service provider or the cloud customer. Option C, filter out only those controls having a direct impact on current TOS and SLA, is not a good way to use the feature because it would exclude other controls that may have an indirect or potential impact on the TOS and SLA, or that may be subject to change or negotiation in the future. References :=

What is CAIQ? | CSA - Cloud Security Alliance1

Understanding the Cloud Control Matrix | CloudBolt Software3

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA2

A RACI chart is a tool used to clarify the roles and responsibilities in processes, projects, or operations. In the context of cloud compliance, documenting these responsibilities in a RACI chart ensures that all parties within the enterprise are aware of their specific obligations regarding compliance with laws and regulations. This helps in creating a clear, organized view of how each part of the organization contributes to overall compliance, facilitating better coordination and accountability.

References = The answer is informed by general best practices in cloud compliance and governance, which recommend the use of RACI charts or similar tools to delineate responsibilities clearly. While I can’t reference specific documents from the CCAK or related resources, these practices are widely accepted in the field of cloud security and compliance.

An external audit is an appropriate tool and technique to support a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An external audit is an independent and objective examination of the cloud service provider’s policies, procedures, controls, and performance by a qualified third-party auditor. An external audit can provide assurance that the cloud service provider is fulfilling its obligations and meeting the customer’s expectations in terms of security, compliance, availability, reliability, and quality. An external audit can also identify any gaps or weaknesses in the cloud service provider’s security posture and suggest recommendations for improvement.

An external audit can be based on various standards, frameworks, and regulations that are relevant to the cloud service provider’s industry and domain. For example, some common external audits for cloud service providers are:

ISO/IEC 27001: This is an international standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS). An ISMS is a systematic approach to managing sensitive information so that it remains secure. An ISO/IEC 27001 certification demonstrates that the cloud service provider has implemented a comprehensive and effective ISMS that covers all aspects of information security, including risk assessment, policy development, asset management, access control, incident management, business continuity, and compliance.1

SOC 2: This is an attestation report that evaluates the cloud service provider’s security controls based on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria. The Trust Services Criteria are a set of principles and criteria for evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of controls that affect the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of a system. A SOC 2 report provides assurance that the cloud service provider has implemented adequate controls to protect the customer’s data and systems.2

CSA STAR: This is a program for flexible, incremental, and multi-layered cloud provider certification and/or attestation according to the Cloud Security Alliance’s industry leading security guidance and control framework. The CSA STAR program consists of three levels of assurance: Level 1: Self-Assessment, Level 2: Third-Party Audit, and Level 3: Continuous Auditing. The CSA STAR program aims to provide transparency, assurance, and trust in the cloud ecosystem by enabling customers to assess and compare the security and compliance posture of cloud service providers.3

The other options listed are not suitable for supporting a customer’s verification of the cloud service provider’s claims regarding its responsibilities according to the shared responsibility model. An internal audit is an audit conducted by the cloud service provider itself or by an internal auditor hired by the cloud service provider. An internal audit may not be as independent or objective as an external audit, and it may not provide sufficient evidence or credibility to the customer. A contractual agreement is a legal document that defines the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider and the customer. A contractual agreement may specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. However, a contractual agreement alone does not verify or validate whether the cloud service provider is actually fulfilling its claims or meeting its contractual obligations. A security assessment is a process of identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the security risks and vulnerabilities of a system or an organization. A security assessment may involve various methods such as vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, threat modeling, or risk analysis. A security assessment may provide useful information about the current state of security of a system or an organization, but it may not cover all aspects of the shared responsibility model or provide assurance that the cloud service provider is complying with its responsibilities on an ongoing basis.

Access controls are the aspect of Software as a Service (SaaS) functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Access controls refer to the methods and techniques that verify the identity and access rights of users or devices that access or use the SaaS application and its data. Access controls may include credentials, policies, roles, permissions, tokens, multifactor authentication, single sign-on, etc. The cloud customer is responsible for ensuring that only authorized and legitimate users or devices can access or use the SaaS application and its data, as well as for protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their data. The cloud customer should also monitor and audit the access and usage of the SaaS application and its data, as well as any incidents or issues that may affect them123.

Source code reviews (A) are not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Source code reviews refer to the processes and practices that examine the source code of software applications or systems to identify errors, bugs, vulnerabilities, or inefficiencies that may affect their quality, functionality, or security. Source code reviews are mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the software applications or systems that deliver SaaS services. The cloud customer has no access or control over these aspects123.

Patching (B) is not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Patching refers to the processes and practices that ensure the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. Patching involves the use of updates or fixes to address vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the cloud components. Patching is mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123.

Vulnerability management (D) is not the aspect of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Vulnerability management refers to the processes and practices that identify, assess, treat, monitor, and report on the risks that affect the security posture of an organization or a domain. Vulnerability management involves the use of tools or techniques to scan, analyze, prioritize, remediate, or mitigate vulnerabilities that may expose an organization or a domain to threats or attacks. Vulnerability management is mainly under the responsibility of the cloud service provider, as they own and operate the cloud infrastructure, platform, or software. The cloud customer has limited or no access or control over these aspects123. References :=

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Providers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Audits: A Guide for Cloud Service Customers - Cloud Standards …

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, a cloud auditor should use statistical sampling rather than judgment (nonstatistical) sampling when the probability of error must be objectively quantified1. Statistical sampling is a sampling technique that uses random selection methods and mathematical calculations to draw conclusions about the population from the sample results. Statistical sampling allows the auditor to measure the sampling risk, which is the risk that the sample results do not represent the population, and to express the confidence level and precision of the sample1. Statistical sampling also enables the auditor to estimate the rate of exceptions or errors in the population based on the sample1.

The other options are not valid reasons for using statistical sampling rather than judgment sampling. Option A is irrelevant, as generalized audit software is a tool that can facilitate both statistical and judgment sampling, but it is not a requirement for either technique. Option B is incorrect, as statistical sampling does not avoid sampling risk, but rather measures and controls it. Option D is illogical, as the tolerable error rate is a parameter that must be determined before conducting any sampling technique, whether statistical or judgmental. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 17-18.

The cloud service provider is responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer in all three cloud deployment models (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). The hypervisor layer is the software that allows the creation and management of virtual machines on a physical server. The hypervisor layer is part of the cloud infrastructure, which is owned and operated by the cloud service provider. The cloud service provider is responsible for ensuring that the hypervisor layer is secure, reliable, and up to date with the latest patches and updates. The cloud service provider should also monitor and report on the status and performance of the hypervisor layer, as well as any issues or incidents that may affect it.

The cloud service customer is not responsible for the patching of the hypervisor layer, as they do not have access or control over the cloud infrastructure. The cloud service customer only has access and control over the cloud resources and services that they consume from the cloud service provider, such as virtual machines, storage, databases, applications, etc. The cloud service customer is responsible for ensuring that their own cloud resources and services are secure, compliant, and updated with the latest patches and updates.

The patching of the hypervisor layer is not a shared responsibility between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, as it is solely under the domain of the cloud service provider. The shared responsibility model in cloud computing refers to the division of security and compliance responsibilities between the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer, depending on the type of cloud deployment model. For example, in IaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing the physical infrastructure, network, and hypervisor layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own operating systems, applications, data, etc. In PaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the platform layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own applications and data. In SaaS, the cloud service provider is responsible for securing everything up to the application layer, while the cloud service customer is responsible for securing their own data and user access.

Patching on hypervisor layer is required, as it is essential for maintaining the security, reliability, and performance of the cloud infrastructure. Patching on hypervisor layer can help prevent vulnerabilities, bugs, errors, or exploits that may compromise or affect the functionality of the virtual machines or other cloud resources and services. Patching on hypervisor layer can also help improve or enhance the features or capabilities of the hypervisor software or hardware. References :=

Patching process - AWS Prescriptive Guidance

What is a Hypervisor in Cloud Computing and Its Types? - Simplilearn

In all three cloud deployment models, (IaaS, PaaS, and … - Exam4Training

Reference Architecture: App Layering | Citrix Tech Zone

Hypervisor - GeeksforGeeks

When reviewing a third-party agreement with a cloud service provider, the greatest concern regarding customer data privacy is the return or destruction of information. This is because customer data may contain sensitive or personal information that needs to be protected from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. The cloud service provider should have clear and transparent policies and procedures for returning or destroying customer data upon termination of the agreement or upon customer request. The cloud service provider should also provide evidence of the return or destruction of customer data, such as certificates of destruction, audit logs, or reports. The return or destruction of information should comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The cloud service provider should also ensure that any subcontractors or affiliates that have access to customer data follow the same policies and procedures12.

References:

Cloud Services Agreements – Protecting Your Hosted Environment

CSP agreements, price lists, and offers - Partner Center

 According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the final decision to include a material finding in a cloud audit report should be made by the cloud auditor1. A material finding is a significant error or risk in the cloud service that could affect the achievement of the audit objectives or the cloud customer’s business outcomes. The cloud auditor is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and reporting the material findings based on the audit criteria, methodology, and evidence. The cloud auditor should also communicate the material findings to the auditee and other relevant stakeholders, and obtain their feedback and responses.

The other options are not correct. Option A is incorrect, as the auditee’s senior management is not in charge of the audit report, but rather the subject of the audit. The auditee’s senior management should provide their perspective and action plans for the material findings, but they cannot decide whether to include or exclude them from the report. Option B is incorrect, as the organization’s CEO is not involved in the audit process, but rather the ultimate recipient of the audit report. The organization’s CEO should review and act upon the audit report, but they cannot influence the content of the report. Option D is incorrect, as the organization’s CISO is not an independent party, but rather a stakeholder of the audit. The organization’s CISO should support and collaborate with the cloud auditor, but they cannot make the final decision on the material findings. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 19-20.

According to the ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, the primary goal of a cloud auditor during the planning phase of a cloud audit is to address audit objectives1. The audit objectives are the specific questions that the audit aims to answer, such as whether the cloud service meets the security, compliance, performance, and availability requirements of the cloud customer. The audit objectives should be aligned with the organization’s context, risk appetite, and expectations. The audit objectives should also be clear, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely.

The other options are not the primary goal of a cloud auditor during the planning phase of a cloud audit. Option A is a possible activity, but not the main goal of the planning phase. The appropriate tests are determined based on the audit objectives, criteria, and methodology. Option C is a possible constraint, but not the main goal of the planning phase. The audit resources should be allocated based on the audit scope, complexity, and significance. Option D is a possible outcome, but not the main goal of the planning phase. The sufficient evidence is collected during the execution phase of the audit, based on the audit plan. References:

ISACA Cloud Auditing Knowledge Certificate Study Guide, page 12-13.

 The three layers of the Open Certification Framework (OCF) primarily help cloud service providers and cloud clients improve the level of transparency and assurance. The OCF is designed to provide a trusted and independent evaluation of cloud providers through a flexible, incremental, and multi-layered certification process. This framework enhances transparency by making it easier for consumers to understand and compare providers’ security and compliance capabilities. Additionally, it offers assurance by integrating with third-party assessment and attestation statements, thereby increasing the security baseline for all participants.

References = The benefits of the OCF in improving transparency and assurance are detailed in the Cloud Security Alliance’s documentation on the Open Certification Framework1.

The CSA STAR registry is a publicly accessible registry that documents the security and privacy controls provided by popular cloud computing offerings1 The registry is designed for users of cloud services to assess their cloud providers’ security and compliance posture, including the regulations, standards, and frameworks they adhere to1 The registry also promotes industry transparency and reduces complexity and costs for both providers and customers2

The provider can direct all customer inquiries to the information in the CSA STAR registry, as this would be the best recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. By publishing to the registry, the provider can show current and potential customers their security and compliance posture, without having to fill out multiple customer questionnaires or requests for proposal (RFPs)2 The provider can also leverage the different levels of assurance available in the registry, such as self-assessment, third-party audit, or certification, to demonstrate their security maturity and trustworthiness1 The provider can also benefit from the CSA Trusted Cloud Providers program, which recognizes providers that have fulfilled additional training and volunteer requirements with CSA, demonstrating their commitment to cloud security competency and industry best practices3

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the provider can schedule a call with each customer is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Scheduling a call with each customer would be time-consuming, inefficient, and impractical, especially if the provider receives multiple inquiries and RFPs every month. Scheduling a call would also not guarantee that the customer would be satisfied with the provider’s security and compliance posture, as they may still request additional information or evidence. Scheduling a call would also not help the provider differentiate themselves from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to showcase their security maturity and trustworthiness effectively.

Option B is not correct because the provider can share all security reports with customers to streamline the process is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Sharing all security reports with customers may not be feasible, as some reports may contain sensitive or confidential information that should not be disclosed to external parties. Sharing all security reports may also not be desirable, as some reports may be outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent, which could undermine the provider’s credibility and reputation. Sharing all security reports may also not be effective, as some customers may not have the expertise or resources to review and understand them properly.

Option C is not correct because the provider can answer each customer individually is not a good recommendation to reduce the provider’s burden. Answering each customer individually would be tedious, repetitive, and costly, as the provider would have to provide similar or identical information to different customers over and over again. Answering each customer individually would also not ensure that the provider’s security and compliance posture is consistent and accurate, as they may make mistakes or omissions in their responses. Answering each customer individually would also not help the provider stand out from other providers in the market, as they may not be able to highlight their security achievements and certifications.

References: 1: STAR | CSA 2: Why your cloud services need the CSA STAR Registry listing 3: STAR Registry | CSA

The CSA STAR Certification is based on criteria outlined in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) in addition to ISO/IEC 27001 implementation. The CCM is a cybersecurity control framework for cloud computing that covers 17 domains and 197 control objectives that address all key aspects of cloud technology. ISO/IEC 27001 is a standard for information security management systems that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an information security management system within the context of the organization. The CSA STAR Certification demonstrates that a cloud service provider conforms to the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, has addressed issues critical to cloud security as outlined in the CCM, and has been assessed against the STAR Capability Maturity Model for the management of activities in CCM control areas1. The CSA STAR Certification is a third-party independent assessment of the security of a cloud service provider and provides a high level of assurance and trust to customers2.

References:

CSA STAR Certification - Azure Compliance | Microsoft Learn

STAR | CSA

 When applying the Top Threats Analysis methodology following an incident, the scope of the technical impact identification step is to determine the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system. The Top Threats Analysis methodology is a process developed by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) to help organizations identify, analyze, and mitigate the top threats to cloud computing, as defined in the CSA Top Threats reports. The methodology consists of six steps1:

Scope definition: Define the scope of the analysis, such as the cloud service model, deployment model, and business context.

Threat identification: Identify the relevant threats from the CSA Top Threats reports that may affect the scope of the analysis.

Technical impact identification: Determine the impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information system caused by each threat. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access or disclosure. Integrity refers to the protection of data from unauthorized modification or deletion. Availability refers to the protection of data and services from disruption or denial.

Business impact identification: Determine the impact on the business objectives and operations caused by each threat, such as financial loss, reputational damage, legal liability, or regulatory compliance.

Risk assessment: Assess the likelihood and severity of each threat based on the technical and business impacts, and prioritize the threats according to their risk level.

Risk treatment: Select and implement appropriate risk treatment options for each threat, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer, or acceptance.

The technical impact identification step is important because it helps to measure the extent of damage or harm that each threat can cause to the information system and its components. This step also helps to align the technical impacts with the business impacts and to support the risk assessment and treatment steps.

References := CCAK Study Guide, Chapter 4: A Threat Analysis Methodology for Cloud Using CCM, page 81

The most critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding would indicate that the application is vulnerable to various threats and attacks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, injection, cross-site scripting, denial-of-service, etc. This finding would also imply that the application does not comply with the security standards and best practices for cloud services, such as ISO/IEC 27017:20151, CSA Cloud Controls Matrix2, or NIST SP 800-1463. This finding would require immediate remediation and improvement of the application security posture, as well as the implementation of security controls and tests throughout the DevOps process.

Certifications with global security standards specific to cloud are not reviewed, and the impact of noted findings are not assessed (A) would be a significant finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not aware or informed of the security requirements and expectations for cloud services, as well as the gaps or issues that may affect their compliance or performance. This finding would require regular review and analysis of the certifications with global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO/IEC 270014, CSA STAR Certification, or FedRAMP Authorization, as well as the assessment of the impact of noted findings on the organization’s risk profile and business objectives.

Outsourced cloud service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data occurred at the cloud service provider (B) would be a serious finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the cloud service provider failed to ensure the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the cloud services and data that they provide to the organization. This finding would require investigation and resolution of the root cause and impact of the incident, as well as the implementation of preventive and corrective measures to avoid recurrence. This finding would also require review and verification of the contractual terms and conditions between the organization and the cloud service provider, as well as the service level agreements (SLAs) and recovery time objectives (RTOs) for the cloud services.

The organization is not using a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements © would be an important finding of an application security and DevOps audit, but not the most critical one. This finding would indicate that the organization is not following a consistent and systematic approach to manage and monitor its cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, etc. This finding would require adoption and implementation of a unified framework to integrate cloud compliance with regulatory requirements, such as COBIT, NIST Cybersecurity Framework, or CIS Controls, as well as the alignment and integration of these frameworks with the DevOps process.

Regarding cloud service provider agreements and contracts, unless otherwise stated, the provider is responsible only to the cloud customer. This means that the provider has a contractual obligation to deliver the agreed-upon services and meet the service level agreements (SLAs) with the cloud customer, who is the direct payer of the services. The provider is not responsible for any other parties, such as the cloud customer’s clients, end users, or regulators, unless explicitly specified in the contract. The cloud customer is responsible for ensuring that the provider’s services meet their own compliance and security requirements, as well as those of their stakeholders12.

References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

Cloud security shared responsibility model - NCSC

According to the CCAK Study Guide, the business continuity management and operational resilience strategy of the cloud customer should be formulated jointly with the cloud service provider, as they share the responsibility for ensuring the availability and recoverability of the cloud services. The strategy should cover all aspects of business continuity and resilience planning, taking inputs from the assessed impact and risks, to consider activities for before, during, and after a disruption. These activities include prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, restoration, and improvement. The strategy should also define the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the communication channels and escalation procedures, the testing and exercising plans, and the review and update mechanisms1

The other options are not correct because:

Option B is not correct because the strategy should not only be developed within the acceptable limits of the risk appetite, but also aligned with the business objectives and stakeholder expectations of both parties. The risk appetite is only one of the factors that influence the strategy formulation1

Option C is not correct because the strategy should not only cover the activities required to continue and recover prioritized activities within identified time frames and agreed capacity, but also consider the activities for before and after a disruption, such as prevention, mitigation, improvement, etc. The strategy should also include other elements such as roles and responsibilities, communication channels, testing plans, etc1

References: 1: ISACA, Cloud Security Alliance. Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide. 2021. pp. 83-84.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the regulation that is suitable if health information needs to be protected in the European Union. The GDPR provides the legal framework for the protection of personal data, including health data, and sets out directly applicable rules for the processing of the personal data of individuals1. The GDPR defines health data as personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveal information about his or her health status2. The GDPR applies to any organization that processes health data of individuals who are in the EU, regardless of where the organization is established3.

The other options are not correct. Option B, DPIA, is incorrect because DPIA stands for Data Protection Impact Assessment, which is a process that helps organizations to identify and minimize the data protection risks of a project or activity that involves processing personal data. A DPIA is not a regulation, but a tool or a requirement under the GDPR4. Option C, DPA, is incorrect because DPA stands for Data Protection Authority, which is an independent public authority that supervises, through investigative and corrective powers, the application of the data protection law. A DPA is not a regulation, but an institution or a body under the GDPR5. Option D, HIPAA, is incorrect because HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which is a US federal law that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information. HIPAA does not apply to the EU, but to the US6. References :=

European Health Data Space1

Article 4 - Definitions | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)2

Article 3 - Territorial scope | General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)3

Data protection impact assessment | European Commission4

Data protection authorities | European Commission5

What is HIPAA? - Definition from WhatIs.com6

The greatest governance challenge in the scenario where production is hosted in a public cloud and backups are held on-premises is aligning the shared responsibilities between the provider and the customer. This is because the division of security and compliance duties must be clearly understood and managed to ensure that all aspects of the cloud services are adequately protected and meet regulatory requirements. The customer is responsible for the security ‘in’ the cloud (i.e., the data and applications), while the provider is responsible for the security ‘of’ the cloud (i.e., the infrastructure). Misalignment in this shared responsibility model can lead to gaps in security and compliance, making it a significant governance challenge.

References = This answer is verified by the information available in the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources provided by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), which discuss the shared responsibility model and its implications for governance in cloud environments12.

From an auditor’s perspective, shadow IT is best described as a risk that jeopardizes business continuity planning. Shadow IT refers to the use of IT-related hardware or software that is not under the control of, or has not been approved by, the organization’s IT department. This can lead to a lack of visibility into the IT infrastructure and potential gaps in security and compliance measures. In the context of business continuity planning, shadow IT can introduce unknown risks and vulnerabilities that are not accounted for in the organization’s disaster recovery and business continuity plans, thereby posing a threat to the organization’s ability to maintain or quickly resume critical functions in the event of a disruption.

References = The answer is based on general knowledge of shadow IT risks and their impact on business continuity planning. Specific references from the Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) documents and related resources by ISACA and the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) are not directly cited here, as my current capabilities do not include accessing or verifying content from external documents or websites. However, the concept of shadow IT as a risk to business continuity is a recognized concern in IT governance and auditing practices1234.

 Effective operationalization of cloud security controls is highly dependent on the level of training and awareness among the staff who implement and manage these controls. Without proper understanding and awareness of security policies, procedures, and the specific controls in place, even the most sophisticated security measures can be rendered ineffective. Training ensures that the personnel are equipped with the necessary knowledge to perform their duties securely, while awareness programs help in maintaining a security-conscious culture within the organization.

References = This answer is supported by the CCAK materials which highlight the importance of training and awareness in cloud security. The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) also emphasizes the need for security education and the role it plays in the successful implementation of security controls1234.

 Contracts and SLAs are legal documents that define the roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations of both the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud customer. They also specify the terms and conditions for service delivery, performance, availability, security, compliance, data protection, incident response, dispute resolution, liability, and termination. An auditor should review these documents to assess the alignment of the CSP’s services with the customer’s business requirements and risk appetite, as well as to identify any gaps or inconsistencies that may pose legal risks. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 35-36

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, GRM-01: Contracts and SLAs

Heat maps are graphical representations of data that use color-coding to show the relative intensity, frequency, or magnitude of a variable1. Heat maps can be used to visualize the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, along with their dependencies and risks, by mapping the cloud services to different dimensions, such as business impact, availability, security, performance, cost, etc. Heat maps can help auditors identify the most important or vulnerable cloud services, as well as the relationships and trade-offs among them2.

For example, Azure Charts provides heat maps for various aspects of Azure cloud services, such as updates, trends, pillars, areas, geos, categories, etc3. These heat maps can help auditors understand the current state and dynamics of Azure cloud services and compare them across different dimensions4.

Contractual documents of the cloud service provider are the legal agreements that define the terms and conditions of the cloud service, including the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of the parties involved. They may provide some information on the criticality of the cloud services in an organization, but they are not as visual or comprehensive as heat maps. Data security process flow is a diagram that shows the steps and activities involved in protecting data from unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure. It may help auditors understand the data security controls and risks of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not cover other aspects of criticality, such as business impact or performance. Turtle diagram is a tool that helps analyze a process by showing its inputs, outputs, resources, criteria, methods, and interactions. It may help auditors understand the process flow and dependencies of the cloud services in an organization, but it does not show the relative importance or risks of each process element.

References:

What is a Heat Map? Definition from WhatIs.com1, section on Heat Map

Cloud Computing Security Considerations | Cyber.gov.au2, section on Cloud service criticality

Azure Charts - Clarity for the Cloud3, section on Heat Maps

Azure Services Overview4, section on Heat Maps

Cloud Services Due Diligence Checklist | Trust Center, section on How to use the checklist

Data Security Process Flow - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, section on Data Security Process Flow

What is a Turtle Diagram? Definition from WhatIs.com, section on Turtle Diagram

The first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework is to identify key risk categories. Key risk categories are the broad areas or domains of cloud security and compliance that may affect the cloud service provider and the cloud service customer. Key risk categories may include data security, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, disaster recovery, audit assurance and compliance, etc. Identifying key risk categories helps to scope and focus the cloud risk assessment process, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their relevance and significance. Identifying key risk categories also helps to align and map the risks with the applicable standards, regulations, or frameworks that govern cloud security and compliance12.

Analyzing potential impact and likelihood (A) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the third step. Analyzing potential impact and likelihood is the process of estimating the consequences or effects of a risk event on the business objectives, operations, processes, or functions (impact), as well as the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring (likelihood). Analyzing potential impact and likelihood helps to measure and quantify the severity or magnitude of the risk event, as well as to prioritize and rank the risks based on their impact and likelihood12.

Establishing cloud risk profile (B) is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the second step. Establishing cloud risk profile is the process of defining and documenting the expected level of risk that an organization is willing to accept or tolerate in relation to its cloud services (risk appetite), as well as the actual level of risk that an organization faces or encounters in relation to its cloud services (risk exposure). Establishing cloud risk profile helps to determine and communicate the objectives, expectations, and responsibilities of cloud security and compliance, as well as to align and integrate them with the business strategy and goals12.

Evaluating and documenting the risks © is not the first step of the Cloud Risk Evaluation Framework, but rather the fourth step. Evaluating and documenting the risks is the process of assessing and reporting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls or actions that are implemented or applied to prevent, avoid, transfer, or accept a risk event (risk treatment), as well as identifying and addressing any gaps or issues that may arise (risk monitoring). Evaluating and documenting the risks helps to ensure that the actual level of risk is aligned with the desired level of risk, as well as to update and improve the risk management strategy and plan12. References :=

Cloud Auditing Knowledge: Preparing for the CCAK Certificate Exam

Cloud Risk—10 Principles and a Framework for Assessment - ISACA

A Type 1 SOC report assesses whether controls are appropriately designed at a specific point in time, while a Type 2 SOC report tests the operating effectiveness of these controls over a period. For cloud auditing, Type 2 is often preferred for its comprehensive approach to both design and effectiveness over time. The CCAK curriculum emphasizes understanding these reports as critical tools in auditing cloud service providers (referenced in the CCAK content on Assurance and Transparency and the CSA STAR framework).

=========================

In multi-cloud environments, organizations use cloud services from multiple providers. This can lead to challenges in maintaining visibility and control over the data and services due to the varying management tools, processes, and security controls across different providers. The complexity of managing multiple service models and the reliance on different cloud service providers can reduce an organization’s ability to monitor and control its resources effectively, thus increasing the risk of reduced visibility and control.

References = The information aligns with the principles outlined in the CCAK materials, which emphasize the unique challenges of auditing the cloud, including ensuring the right controls for confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility, and mitigating risks such as those associated with multi-cloud environments12.

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is a standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services by providing additional implementation guidance for relevant controls specified in ISO/IEC 27002, as well as additional controls with implementation guidance that specifically relate to cloud services1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 is designed to be used by organizations for cloud services that intend to select controls within the process of implementing an information security management system based on ISO/IEC 27001, which is the international standard for information security management systems1. ISO/IEC 27017:2015 can help organizations to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve their information security in the cloud environment, as well as to demonstrate compliance with contractual and legal obligations1.

ISO/IEC 27002 is a code of practice for information security controls that provides best practice recommendations on information security management for use by those who are responsible for initiating, implementing or maintaining information security management systems2. However, ISO/IEC 27002 does not provide specific guidance for cloud services, which is why ISO/IEC 27017:2015 was developed as an extension to ISO/IEC 27002 for cloud services1.

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is a set of security controls that provides organizations with a detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the cloud model. The CCM is not a standard, but rather a framework that can be used to assess the overall security risk of a cloud provider. The CCM can also be mapped to other standards, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27017:2015, to facilitate compliance and assurance activities.

NIST SP 800-146 is a publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that provides an overview of cloud computing, its characteristics, service models, deployment models, benefits, challenges and considerations. NIST SP 800-146 is not a standard, but rather a reference document that can help organizations to understand the basics of cloud computing and its implications for information security. NIST SP 800-146 does not provide specific guidance or controls for cloud services, but rather refers to other standards and frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 27001 and CSA CCM, for more detailed information on cloud security. References :=

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

ISO/IEC 27017:2015(en), Information technology ? Security techniques …

ISO 27017 Certification - Cloud Security Services | NQA

An introduction to ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - 6clicks

ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - Information technology — Security techniques …

[Cloud Controls Matrix | Cloud Security Alliance]

[NIST Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations]

 According to the cloud shared responsibility model, the cloud customer is responsible for managing the access controls for the SaaS functionality and operations, and this should be audited by the cloud auditor12. Access controls are the mechanisms that restrict and regulate who can access and use the SaaS applications and data, and how they can do so. Access controls include identity and access management, authentication, authorization, encryption, logging, and monitoring. The cloud customer is responsible for defining and enforcing the access policies, roles, and permissions for the SaaS users, as well as ensuring that the access controls are aligned with the security and compliance requirements of the customer’s business context12.

The other options are not the aspects of SaaS functionality and operations that the cloud customer is responsible for and should be audited. Option B is incorrect, as vulnerability management is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the security weaknesses in the SaaS applications and infrastructure, and this is usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option C is incorrect, as patching is the process of updating and fixing the SaaS applications and infrastructure to address security issues or improve performance, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. Option D is incorrect, as source code reviews are the process of examining and testing the SaaS applications’ source code to detect errors or vulnerabilities, and this is also usually handled by the cloud service provider12. References:

Shared responsibility in the cloud - Microsoft Azure

The Customer’s Responsibility in the Cloud Shared Responsibility Model - ISACA

Continuous integration (CI) is the most critical concept for managing the building and testing of code in DevOps. CI is the practice of merging all developers’ working copies of code to a shared mainline several times a day. This enables early detection and resolution of bugs, conflicts, and errors, as well as faster and more frequent feedback loops. CI also facilitates the automation of building, testing, and deploying code, which improves the quality, reliability, and security of the software delivery process. CI is a prerequisite for continuous delivery (CD) and continuous deployment (CD), which are the next stages of DevOps maturity that aim to deliver software to customers faster and more frequently. References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 114-115

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, DCS-01: Datacenter Security - Build and Test

What is Continuous Integration?

Continuous Integration vs Continuous Delivery vs Continuous Deployment

Shadow IT refers to the use of IT resources (hardware, software, or cloud services) within an organization without the explicit approval of the IT or governance team. This practice is often flagged in cloud audits due to potential risks of compliance violations and security threats. The CCAK documentation from ISACA highlights the need for visibility and governance over all IT assets, with specific controls listed in the CSA CCM for Cloud Governance (GOV-09). Shadow IT poses risks to data security, compliance, and can introduce vulnerabilities, as systems are not subject to organizational standards and oversight.

=========================

The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) by the Cloud Security Alliance provides a comprehensive control framework that aligns with industry standards, regulations, and best practices, offering a structured approach for cloud security and compliance management. This mapping capability makes it highly valuable in cloud audits as noted in the CCAK, which relies on CCM for its comprehensive applicability in regulatory compliance and security (referenced in CSA CCM V4 documentation and ISACA CCAK content).

This control specification aligns with the concept of independent audits, which are crucial for verifying that an organization adheres to its established policies, standards, procedures, and compliance obligations. The requirement for these reviews and assessments to be performed at least annually ensures ongoing compliance and the ability to address any areas of nonconformity. Independent audits provide an objective assessment and are essential for maintaining transparency and trust in the cloud services provided.

References = The Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) specifically mentions the need for independent assessments to be conducted annually as part of the Audit Assurance and Compliance domain, which is detailed in the CCM’s guidelines and related documents provided by the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)12.

Management representation is a term used in audit parlance to refer to the statements made by management in response to specific inquiries or through the financial statements, as part of the audit evidence that the auditor obtains. Management representation can be oral or written, but the auditor usually obtains written representation from management in the form of a letter that attests to the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements and other information provided to the auditor. The management representation letter is signed by senior management, such as the CEO and CFO, and is dated the same date of audit work completion. The management representation letter confirms or documents the representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor during the audit, indicates the continuing appropriateness of such representations, and reduces the possibility of misunderstanding concerning the matters that are the subject of the representations12.

Management representation is not a person or group of persons representing executive management during audits (A), as this would imply that management is not directly involved or accountable for the audit process. Management representation is not a mechanism to represent organizational structure (B), as this would imply that management representation is a graphical or diagrammatic tool to show the hierarchy or relationships within an organization. Management representation is not a project management technique to demonstrate management’s involvement in key project stages ©, as this would imply that management representation is a method or practice to monitor or report on the progress or outcomes of a project.

An example of integrity technical impact refers to an event where the accuracy or trustworthiness of data is compromised. Option D, where a hacker uses a stolen administrator identity to alter the discount percentage in the product database, directly affects the integrity of the data. This action leads to unauthorized changes to data, which is a clear violation of data integrity. In contrast, options A, B, and C describe breaches of confidentiality, availability, and security, respectively, but do not directly impact the integrity of the data itself123.

References = The concept of data integrity in cloud computing is extensively covered in the literature, including the importance of protecting against unauthorized data alteration to maintain the trustworthiness and accuracy of data throughout its lifecycle123.

The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) is the best tool to perform cloud security control audits, as it is a comprehensive framework that provides organizations with a detailed understanding of security concepts and principles that are aligned to the cloud model. The CCM covers 16 domains of cloud security, such as data security, identity and access management, encryption and key management, incident response, and audit assurance and compliance. The CCM also maps to other standards, such as ISO 27001, NIST SP 800-53, PCI DSS, COBIT, and GDPR, to facilitate compliance and assurance activities1.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is not a tool, but rather a regulation that aims to protect the personal data and privacy of individuals in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). The GDPR imposes strict requirements on organizations that process personal data of individuals in these regions, such as obtaining consent, ensuring data security, reporting breaches, and respecting data subject rights. The GDPR is relevant for cloud security audits, but it is not a comprehensive framework that covers all aspects of cloud security2.

The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 is not a tool, but rather a standard that specifies the security requirements for cryptographic modules used by federal agencies and other organizations. The FIPS 140-2 defines four levels of security, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 4 (highest), based on the design and implementation of the cryptographic module. The FIPS 140-2 is important for cloud security audits, especially for organizations that handle sensitive or classified information, but it is not a comprehensive framework that covers all aspects of cloud security3.

ISO 27001 is a standard that specifies the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system (ISMS). An ISMS is a systematic approach to managing information security risks and ensuring the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information assets. ISO 27001 is relevant for cloud security audits, as it provides a framework for assessing and improving the security posture of an organization. However, ISO 27001 does not provide specific guidance or controls for cloud services, which is why ISO 27017:2015 was developed as an extension to ISO 27001 for cloud services4. References :=

Cloud Controls Matrix | Cloud Security Alliance

General Data Protection Regulation - Wikipedia

FIPS PUB 140-2 - NIST

ISO/IEC 27001:2013(en), Information technology ? Security techniques …

According to the web search results, the most critical finding of an application security and DevOps audit would be that the application architecture and configurations did not consider security measures. This finding indicates a serious lack of security by design and security by default principles, which are essential for ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the application and its data . If the application architecture and configurations are not secure, they could expose the application to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as unauthorized access, data breaches, denial-of-service attacks, injection attacks, cross-site scripting attacks, and others . This finding could also result in non-compliance with relevant security standards and regulations, such as ISO 27001, PCI DSS, GDPR, and others . Therefore, this finding should be addressed with high priority and urgency by implementing appropriate security measures and controls in the application architecture and configurations.

The other options are not as critical as option B. Option A is a moderate finding that indicates a lack of awareness and assessment of the global security standards specific to cloud, such as ISO 27017, ISO 27018, CSA CCM, NIST SP 800-53, and others . This finding could affect the security and compliance of the cloud services used by the application, but it does not directly impact the application itself. Option C is a severe finding that indicates a major incident that occurred at the cloud service provider level, such as a service interruption, breach, or loss of stored data. This finding could affect the availability, confidentiality, and integrity of the application and its data, but it is not caused by the application itself. Option D is a minor finding that indicates a lack of efficiency and consistency in integrating cloud compliance with regulatory requirements. This finding could affect the compliance posture of the application and its data, but it does not directly impact the security or functionality of the application. References:

[Application Security Best Practices - OWASP]

[DevSecOps: What It Is and How to Get Started - ISACA]

[Cloud Security Standards: What to Expect & What to Negotiate - CSA]

[Cloud Computing Security Audit - ISACA]

[Cloud Computing Incident Response - ISACA]

[Cloud Compliance: A Framework for Using Cloud Services While Maintaining Compliance - ISACA]

The most relevant question in the cloud compliance program design phase is who owns the cloud governance strategy. Cloud governance is a method of information and technology (I&T) governance focused on accountability, defining decision rights and balancing benefit, risk and resources in an environment that embraces cloud computing. Cloud governance creates business-driven policies and principles that establish the appropriate degree of investments and control around the life cycle process for cloud computing services1. Therefore, it is essential to identify who owns the cloud governance strategy in the organization, as this will determine the roles and responsibilities, decision-making authority, reporting structure, and escalation process for cloud compliance issues. The cloud governance owner should be a senior executive who has the vision, influence, and resources to drive the cloud compliance program and align it with the business objectives2.

References:

Building Cloud Governance From the Basics - ISACA

[Cloud Governance | Microsoft Azure]

 According to the web search results, impact analysis is the aspect of risk management that involves identifying the potential reputational and financial harm when an incident occurs. Impact analysis is the process of assessing the probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realized1. Impact analysis helps to understand how project outcomes and objectives might change due to the impact of the risk event, and to measure the severity of the risk impact in terms of cost, schedule, quality, and other factors23. Impact analysis also helps to prioritize the risks and plan appropriate responses and controls23.

The other options are not correct. Likelihood is the aspect of risk management that involves estimating the probability or frequency of a risk event occurring23. Mitigation is the aspect of risk management that involves implementing actions or controls to reduce the likelihood or impact of a risk event23. Residual risk is the aspect of risk management that involves measuring the remaining risk after applying mitigation actions or controls23. References:

Risk Analysis: Definition, Examples and Methods - ProjectManager

Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative - ISACA

Systems Engineering: Risk Impact Assessment and Prioritization

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation. A policy violation refers to the breach or violation of a written policy or rule of the organization. A policy or rule is a statement that defines the expectations, standards, or requirements for the behavior, conduct, or performance of the organization’s members, such as employees, customers, partners, or suppliers. Policies and rules can be based on various sources, such as laws, regulations, contracts, agreements, principles, values, ethics, or best practices12.

The organization should define what constitutes a policy violation because it is responsible for establishing, communicating, enforcing, and monitoring its own policies and rules. The organization should also define the consequences and remedies for policy violations, such as warnings, sanctions, penalties, termination, or legal action. The organization should ensure that its policies and rules are clear, consistent, fair, and aligned with its mission, vision, and goals12.

The other options are not correct. Option A, the external auditor, is incorrect because the external auditor is an independent party that provides assurance or verification of the organization’s financial statements, internal controls, compliance status, or performance. The external auditor does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but evaluates them against relevant standards or criteria3. Option C, the Internet service provider (ISP), is incorrect because the ISP is a company that provides access to the Internet and related services to the organization. The ISP does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer4. Option D, the cloud provider, is incorrect because the cloud provider is a company that provides cloud computing services to the organization. The cloud provider does not define the organization’s policies and rules, but may have its own policies and rules that the organization has to comply with as a customer5. References :=

Policy Violation Definition | Law Insider1

How to Write Policies and Procedures | Smartsheet2

What is an External Auditor? - Definition from Safeopedia3

What is an Internet Service Provider (ISP)? - Definition from Techopedia4

What is Cloud Provider? - Definition from Techopedia

Implementing service level agreements (SLAs) around changes to baseline configurations is the most important way to manage risk from cloud vendors who might accidentally introduce unnecessary risk to an organization by adding new features to their solutions. A service level agreement (SLA) is a contract or a part of a contract that defines the expected level of service, performance, and quality that a cloud vendor will provide to an organization. An SLA can also specify the roles and responsibilities, the communication channels, the escalation procedures, and the penalties or remedies for non-compliance12.

Implementing SLAs around changes to baseline configurations can help an organization to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions without proper testing, validation, or notification. Baseline configurations are the standard or reference settings for a system or a network that are used to measure and maintain its security and performance. Changes to baseline configurations can introduce new vulnerabilities, errors, or incompatibilities that can affect the functionality, availability, or security of the system or network34. Therefore, an SLA can help an organization to ensure that the cloud vendor follows a change management process that includes steps such as risk assessment, impact analysis, approval, documentation, notification, testing, and rollback. An SLA can also help an organization to monitor and verify the changes made by the cloud vendor and to report and resolve any issues or incidents that may arise from them.

The other options are not the most effective ways to manage the risk from cloud vendors who might add new features to their solutions. Option A, deploying new features using cloud orchestration tools, is not a good way to manage the risk because cloud orchestration tools are used to automate and coordinate the deployment and management of complex cloud services and resources. Cloud orchestration tools do not address the issue of whether the new features added by the cloud vendor are necessary, secure, or compatible with the organization’s system or network. Option B, performing prior due diligence of the vendor, is not a good way to manage the risk because prior due diligence is a process that involves evaluating and verifying the background, reputation, capabilities, and compliance of a potential cloud vendor before entering into a contract with them. Prior due diligence does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will handle changes to their solutions after the contract is signed. Option C, establishing responsibility in the vendor contract, is not a good way to manage the risk because establishing responsibility in the vendor contract is a process that involves defining and assigning the roles and obligations of both parties in relation to the cloud service delivery and performance. Establishing responsibility in the vendor contract does not address the issue of how the cloud vendor will communicate and coordinate with the organization about changes to their solutions. References :=

What is an SLA? Best practices for service-level agreements | CIO1

Service Level Agreements - Cloud Security Alliance2

What is Baseline Configuration? - Definition from Techopedia3

Baseline Configuration - Cloud Security Alliance4

Change Management - Cloud Security Alliance

Incident Response - Cloud Security Alliance

What is Cloud Orchestration? - Definition from Techopedia

Due Diligence - Cloud Security Alliance

Contractual Security Requirements - Cloud Security Alliance

 The greatest concern to the auditor should be that the customer cannot monitor its cloud subscription on its own and must rely on the provider for monitoring purposes. This situation can lead to a lack of transparency and control over the security and compliance posture of the cloud services being used. It is crucial for customers to have the ability to independently monitor their systems to ensure that they are secure and compliant with relevant regulations and standards.

References = This concern is highlighted in the Cloud Security Alliance’s (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) and the Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) materials, which emphasize the importance of continuous monitoring and the customer’s ability to audit and ensure the security of their cloud services1.

A corrective control is a measure taken to correct or reduce the impact of an error, deviation, or unwanted activity1. Corrective control can be either manual or automated, depending on the type of control used. Corrective control can involve procedures, manuals, systems, patches, quarantines, terminations, reboots, or default dates1. A Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is an example of a corrective control.

Unsuccessful access attempts being automatically logged for investigation is an example of a corrective control because it is a response to a potential security incident that aims to identify and resolve the cause and prevent future occurrences2. Logging and investigating failed login attempts can help detect unauthorized or malicious attempts to access sensitive data or systems and take appropriate actions to mitigate the risk.

The other options are examples of preventive controls, which are designed to prevent problems from occurring in the first place3. Preventive controls can include:

A central antivirus system installing the latest signature files before allowing a connection to the network: This is a preventive control because it prevents malware infection by blocking potentially harmful connections and updating the antivirus software regularly4.

All new employees having standard access rights until their manager approves privileged rights: This is a preventive control because it prevents unauthorized access by enforcing the principle of least privilege and requiring approval for granting higher-level permissions5.

Privileged access to critical information systems requiring a second factor of authentication using a soft token: This is a preventive control because it prevents credential theft or compromise by adding an extra layer of security to verify the identity of the user.

References:

What is a corrective control? - Answers1, section on Corrective control

Detective controls - SaaS Lens - docs.aws.amazon.com2, section on Unsuccessful login attempts

Internal control: how do preventive and detective controls work?3, section on Preventive Controls

What Are Security Controls? - F54, section on Preventive Controls

The 3 Types of Internal Controls (With Examples) | Layer Blog5, section on Preventive Controls

What are the 3 Types of Internal Controls? — RiskOptics - Reciprocity, section on Preventive Controls

 A dot release of the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) indicates a technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is smaller than 10% compared to the previous full release. A dot release is a minor update to the CCM that reflects the feedback from the cloud security community and the changes in the cloud technology landscape. A dot release does not change the domain structure or the overall scope of the CCM, but rather improves the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the existing controls. A dot release is denoted by a decimal number after the major version number, such as CCM v4.1 or CCM v4.2. The current version of the CCM is v4.0, which was released in October 20211.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. a revision of the CCM domain structure: A revision of the CCM domain structure is a major change that affects the organization and categorization of the controls into different domains. A revision of the CCM domain structure requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

C. the introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls: The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls is an additional feature that enhances the usability and applicability of the CCM. The introduction of new control frameworks mapped to previously published CCM controls does not require a dot release or a full release, but rather an update to the mapping table that shows the relationship between the CCM controls and other industry-accepted security standards, regulations, and frameworks3.

D. technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release: A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release is a significant change that affects the content and scope of the CCM. A technical change (revision, addition, or deletion) of a number of controls that is greater than 10% compared to the previous full release requires a full release, not a dot release, and is denoted by an integer number, such as CCM v3 or CCM v42.

References:

Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) - CSA

The CSA Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) V4: Raising the cloud security bar

Cloud Security Alliance Releases New Cloud Controls Matrix Auditing Guidelines

It is most important for an auditor to be aware that an inventory of assets within a cloud environment is fundamental for the security management program. An inventory of assets is a list of all the hardware, software, data, and services that are owned, used, or managed by an organization in the cloud. An inventory of assets helps the organization to identify, classify, and prioritize its cloud resources and to implement appropriate security controls and policies to protect them. An inventory of assets also helps the organization to comply with relevant regulations, standards, and contracts that may apply to its cloud environment.12

An auditor should be aware of the importance of an inventory of assets in the cloud because it provides a baseline for assessing the security posture and compliance status of the organization’s cloud environment. An auditor can use the inventory of assets to verify that the organization has a clear and accurate understanding of its cloud resources and their characteristics, such as location, ownership, configuration, dependencies, vulnerabilities, and risks. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to evaluate whether the organization has implemented adequate security measures and processes to protect its cloud resources from threats and incidents. An auditor can also use the inventory of assets to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the organization’s security management program and to provide recommendations for improvement.34

References := Why is IT Asset Inventory Management Critical? - Fresh Security1; Use asset inventory to manage your resources’ security posture2; The importance of asset inventory in cybersecurity3; The Importance Of Asset Inventory In Cyber Security And CMDB - Visore4

 The greatest risk associated with hidden interdependencies between cloud services is the lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain. Hidden interdependencies are the complex and often unknown relationships and dependencies between different cloud services, providers, sub-providers, and customers. These interdependencies can create challenges and risks for the security, availability, performance, and compliance of the cloud services and data. For example, a failure or breach in one cloud service can affect other cloud services that depend on it, or a change in one cloud provider’s policy or contract can impact other cloud providers or customers that rely on it.12

The lack of visibility over the cloud service providers’ supply chain means that the customers do not have enough information or control over how their cloud services and data are delivered, managed, and protected by the providers and their sub-providers. This can expose the customers to various threats and vulnerabilities, such as data breaches, data loss, service outages, compliance violations, legal disputes, or contractual conflicts. The customers may also face difficulties in monitoring, auditing, or verifying the security and compliance status of their cloud services and data across the supply chain. Therefore, it is important for the customers to understand the hidden interdependencies between cloud services and to establish clear and transparent agreements with their cloud providers and sub-providers regarding their roles, responsibilities, expectations, and obligations.3

References := How to identify and map service dependencies - Gremlin1; Mitigate Risk for Data Center Network Migration - Cisco2; Practical Guide to Cloud Service Agreements Version 2.03; HIDDEN INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL …

A security categorization of the information systems should be performed first to properly implement the NIST SP 800-53 r4 control framework in an organization. Security categorization is the process of determining the potential impact on organizational operations, organizational assets, individuals, other organizations, and the Nation resulting from a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an information system and the information processed, stored, or transmitted by that system. Security categorization is based on the application of FIPS Publication 199, Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, which defines three levels of impact: low, moderate, and high. Security categorization is the first step in the Risk Management Framework (RMF) described in NIST SP 800-37, Revision 2, Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations: A System Life Cycle Approach for Security and Privacy. Security categorization helps to identify the security requirements for the information system and to select an initial set of baseline security controls from NIST SP 800-53 r4, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. The baseline security controls can then be tailored and supplemented as needed to address specific organizational needs, risk factors, and compliance obligations12.

References:

SP 800-53 Rev. 4, Security & Privacy Controls for Federal Info Sys …

SP 800-37 Rev. 2, Risk Management Framework for Information …

The shift-left concept of code release cycles is a practice that aims to integrate testing, quality, and performance evaluation early in the software development life cycle, often before any code is written. This helps to find and prevent defects, improve quality, and enable faster delivery of secure software. One of the key aspects of the shift-left concept is the incorporation of automation to identify and address software code problems early, such as using continuous integration, continuous delivery, and continuous testing tools. Automation can help reduce manual errors, speed up feedback loops, and increase efficiency and reliability123

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because large entities with slower release cadences and geographically dispersed systems are more likely to face challenges in adopting the shift-left concept, as they may have more complex and legacy systems, dependencies, and processes that hinder agility and collaboration. The shift-left concept requires a culture of continuous improvement, experimentation, and learning that may not be compatible with traditional or siloed organizations4

Option C is not correct because a waterfall model is the opposite of the shift-left concept, as it involves sequential phases of development, testing, and deployment that are performed late in the software development life cycle. A waterfall model does not allow for early detection and correction of defects, feedback, or changes, and can result in higher costs, delays, and risks5

Option D is not correct because maturity of start-up entities with high-iteration to low-volume code commits is not a sign of the shift-left concept, but rather a sign of the agile or lean software development methodologies. These methodologies focus on delivering value to customers by delivering working software in short iterations or sprints, with frequent feedback and adaptation. While these methodologies can support the shift-left concept by enabling faster testing and delivery cycles, they are not equivalent or synonymous with it6

References: 1: AWS. What is DevSecOps? - Developer Security Operations Explained - AWS. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Dynatrace. Shift left vs shift right: A DevOps mystery solved - Dynatrace news. [Online]. Available: 2. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: BMC Software. Shift Left Testing: What, Why & How To Shift Left – BMC Software | Blogs. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: GitLab. How to shift left with continuous integration | GitLab. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: DZone. DevOps and The Shift-Left Principle - DZone. [Online]. Available: 5. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 6: Devopedia. Shift Left - Devopedia. [Online]. Available: 6. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

In the context of cloud operationalization, “below the waterline” refers to the aspects of cloud services that are managed and controlled by the cloud service provider (CSP) rather than the customer. This analogy is often used to describe the shared responsibility model in cloud computing, where the CSP is responsible for the infrastructure’s security and stability, akin to the submerged part of an iceberg that supports the structure above water. The customer, on the other hand, is responsible for managing the controls and security measures “above the waterline,” which include the applications, data, and access management they deploy in the cloud environment.

References = The information provided is based on standard cloud computing models and the shared responsibility concept, which is a fundamental principle discussed in cloud auditing and security literature, including the CCAK curriculum and related resources1.

The correct answer is A. To providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. This is the main purpose of FedRAMP, which is a government-wide program that promotes the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government. FedRAMP provides a standardized methodology for assessing, authorizing, and monitoring the security of cloud products and services, and enables agencies to leverage the security assessments of cloud service providers (CSPs) that have been approved by FedRAMP. FedRAMP also establishes a baseline set of security controls for cloud computing, based on NIST SP 800-53, and provides guidance and templates for implementing and documenting the controls1.

The other options are incorrect because:

B. To provide agencies of the federal government a dedicated tool to certify Authority to Operate (ATO): FedRAMP does not provide a tool to certify ATO, but rather a process to obtain a provisional ATO (P-ATO) from the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an agency ATO from a federal agency. ATO is the official management decision given by a senior official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations, agency assets, or individuals based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls2.

C. To enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of cloud service providers: FedRAMP does not enable 3PAOs to perform independent security assessments of CSPs, but rather requires CSPs to use 3PAOs for conducting independent security assessments as part of the FedRAMP process. 3PAOs are independent entities that have been accredited by FedRAMP to perform initial and periodic security assessments of CSPs’ systems and provide evidence of compliance with FedRAMP requirements3.

D. To publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security: FedRAMP does not publish a comprehensive and official framework for the secure implementation of controls for cloud security, but rather adopts and adapts the existing framework of NIST SP 800-53, which provides a catalog of security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations. FedRAMP tailors the NIST SP 800-53 controls to provide a subset of controls that are specific to cloud computing, and categorizes them into low, moderate, and high impact levels based on FIPS 1994.

References:

Learn What FedRAMP is All About | FedRAMP | FedRAMP.gov

Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems - NIST

Third Party Assessment Organizations (3PAO) | FedRAMP.gov

Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations - NIST

According to the definition of regression testing, it is a type of software testing that confirms that a recent program or code change has not adversely affected existing features1 It involves re-running functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change2 If the software does not perform as expected, it is called a regression. Therefore, the most important goal of regression testing is to ensure new releases do not impact previous stable features.

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not correct because the expected outputs are provided by the new features is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of functional testing or acceptance testing. These types of testing aim to verify that the software meets the specified requirements and satisfies the user needs. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the existing features are not broken by the new features3

Option B is not correct because the system can handle a high number of users is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of performance testing or load testing. These types of testing aim to evaluate the behavior and responsiveness of the software under various workloads and conditions. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the software functionality and quality are not degraded by code changes4

Option C is not correct because the system can be restored after a technical issue is not the goal of regression testing, but rather the goal of recovery testing or disaster recovery testing. These types of testing aim to assess the ability of the software to recover from failures or disasters and resume normal operations. Regression testing, on the other hand, focuses on checking that the software does not introduce new failures or defects due to code changes5

References: 1: Wikipedia. Regression testing - Wikipedia. [Online]. Available: 3. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 2: Katalon. What is Regression Testing? Definition, Tools, Examples - Katalon. [Online]. Available: 4. [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 3: Guru99. What is Functional Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 4: Guru99. What is Performance Testing? Types & Examples - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023]. 5: Guru99. What is Recovery Testing? with Example - Guru99. [Online]. Available: . [Accessed: 14-Apr-2023].

The auditor’s next course of action should be to review the contract and DR capability of the cloud service provider. This will help the auditor to verify if the provider has a DR plan that meets the organization’s requirements and expectations, and if the provider has evidence of testing and validating the plan annually. The auditor should also check if the contract specifies the roles and responsibilities of both parties, the RTO and RPO values, the SLA terms, and the penalties for non-compliance.

Reviewing the security white paper of the provider (option A) might give some information about the provider’s security practices and controls, but it might not be sufficient or relevant to assess the DR plan. Reviewing the provider’s audit reports (option B) might also provide some assurance about the provider’s compliance with standards and regulations, but it might not address the specific DR needs of the organization. Planning an audit of the provider (option D) might be a possible course of action, but it would require more time and resources, and it might not be feasible or necessary if the contract and DR capability are already satisfactory. References:

Disaster recovery planning guide

Audit a Disaster Recovery Plan

How to Maintain and Test a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan

In a multi-level supply chain structure where cloud service provider A relies on other sub cloud service providers, the provider should ensure that any compliance requirements relevant to the provider are passed to the sub cloud service providers. This is because the sub cloud service providers may have access to or process the provider’s data or resources, and therefore need to comply with the same standards and regulations as the provider. Passing the compliance requirements to the sub cloud service providers can also help the provider to monitor and audit the sub cloud service providers’ performance and security, and to mitigate any risks or issues that may arise.

References:

ISACA, Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (CCAK) Study Guide, 2021, p. 85-86.

CSA, Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0, 2021, p. 7-8

 Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), organizations are required to report a data breach to the appropriate supervisory authority within 72 hours of becoming aware of it. This timeframe is critical to ensure timely communication with the authorities and affected individuals, if necessary, to mitigate any potential harm caused by the breach.

References = This requirement is outlined in the GDPR guidelines, which emphasize the importance of prompt reporting to maintain compliance and protect individual rights and freedoms12345.